4.044..004.0 Screening of AlternativesScreening of ...media.metro.net/projects_studies/east_sfv/images/esfv_Screening_of...4.044..004.0 Screening of AlternativesScreening of AlternativesScreening

East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Screening of Alternatives Alternatives Analysis Report FINAL

Page 56

4.04.04.04.0 Screening of AlternativesScreening of AlternativesScreening of AlternativesScreening of Alternatives How were the alternatives screenHow were the alternatives screenHow were the alternatives screenHow were the alternatives screened?ed?ed?ed? Evaluation criteria were developed, which are further discussed in Section 4.3, as part of an iterative process of alternatives screening to best identify which alternatives should be evaluated in this Alternatives Analysis (AA) report and the later draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)/Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). This process involves the gradual refinement of project alternative results for the eventual recommendation of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The screening of project alternatives for this AA is organized into two tiers:

• Tier I (Initial) ScreeningTier I (Initial) ScreeningTier I (Initial) ScreeningTier I (Initial) Screening – This initial analysis evaluates the project alternatives on a qualitative level to determine the alternatives that should be carried forward for further consideration.

• Tier II (Final) ScreeningTier II (Final) ScreeningTier II (Final) ScreeningTier II (Final) Screening – The final analysis will evaluate the project alternatives that were carried through from the initial screening process. This stage provides a more detailed quantitative analysis to further refine the project alternatives for community input and Metro Board, and Los Angeles City Council review and approval.

A more detailed discussion of the analysis for Tier I and Tier II screening of Analysis are described in the Tier I – Initial Screening of Alternative and Tier II – Final Screening of Alternatives reports.

4.14.14.14.1 TTTTIER IER IER IER IIII SSSSCREENING CREENING CREENING CREENING PPPPROCESSROCESSROCESSROCESS

Measures employed in the Tier I (initial) analysis are qualitative in nature. All build alternatives under consideration were ranked based on a comparative scale developed by the project team, in order to evaluate the alternatives against the goals of the Purpose and Need, and are discussed in Section 4.5 Tier I Evaluation of this report. The Tier I screening was conducted in a two-stage (Stage I and Stage II) screening process to simplify the analysis. Stage I involved separating out the components of the alternatives into three modal, 12 configurations, and 14 routing options. These options are described within this report in Section 3.0 Preliminary Definition of Alternatives.

Once these categories were screened, the remaining mode, configuration, and route alignment options were combined and screened as part of the Stage II screening effort.


Page 57

4.24.24.24.2 TTTTIER IER IER IER IIIIIIII SSSSCREEN CREEN CREEN CREEN PPPPROCESSROCESSROCESSROCESS

The Tier II screening follows Tier I and evaluates the No Build Alternative and Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative, along with six build alternatives that were carried through from the Tier I screening of alternatives. As part of the Tier II screening, a more detailed quantitative analysis was undertaken to further refine the project alternatives. This phase included the development of operational plans, ridership forecasts, capital costs, and operational and maintenance costs for the No Build, TSM and six build alternatives. Additionally, an evaluation of the environmental benefits and impacts, and economic and land use considerations was conducted.

4.34.34.34.3 EEEEVALUATION VALUATION VALUATION VALUATION CCCCRITERIARITERIARITERIARITERIA

What criteria are used for assessing the preliminary alternatives?What criteria are used for assessing the preliminary alternatives?What criteria are used for assessing the preliminary alternatives?What criteria are used for assessing the preliminary alternatives?

There are seven main evaluation criteria, each having a set of corresponding performance measures that were developed to help screen the alternatives. They are as follows:

• Travel and Mobility Benefits and Impacts

• Regional Connectivity

• Cost-Effectiveness

• Environmental Benefits and Impacts

• Economic and Land Use Considerations

• Community Input

• Financial Capability Table 4-1 summarizes the evaluation criteria that were used in the screening of project alternatives and their corresponding performance measures.

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----1 1 1 1 –––– Evaluation Criteria and PerfoEvaluation Criteria and PerfoEvaluation Criteria and PerfoEvaluation Criteria and Performance Measuresrmance Measuresrmance Measuresrmance Measures

Evaluation CriteriaEvaluation CriteriaEvaluation CriteriaEvaluation Criteria

Annual Study Area Transit Ridership Change in estimated study area daily boardings

Annual Hours of System-wide Transit Users Benefit

Trip time savings multiplied by boardings

Annual System-wide New Riders Mode with higher speed, accessibility, and connectivity

Annual Study Area Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction

Calculated VMT saving, with new trips on proposed alternatives

Point to Point Travel Times (Journey Time)

Minutes between key destinations or route termini

Vehicular Traffic Travel Time Impact Impact in minutes of vehicle travel within the project corridor based on capacity available to traffic after implementation.

Performance Measures Performance Measures Performance Measures Performance Measures

Travel and Mobility Travel and Mobility Travel and Mobility Travel and Mobility Benefits and Benefits and Benefits and Benefits and ImpactsImpactsImpactsImpacts


Page 58

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----1 1 1 1 –––– Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures (continued)Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures (continued)Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures (continued)Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures (continued)

Evaluation CriteriaEvaluation CriteriaEvaluation CriteriaEvaluation CriteriaIntermodal System Connectivity Ability to transfer from one mode to another, and the number of

connections to other services.

System Compatibility within the Region

Mode compatibility with existing transit vehicle types, ability to interline service with existing infrastructure.

Comply with Long Range Regional Mobility Goal

Meeting mobility goals of the region's Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan(RTP)/Sustaintable Community Strategy (SCS)

Capital Costs Cost of construction, initial investment on rolling stock, maintenance facilities.

Incremental Annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Combined annualized capital cost and annual O&M cost.

Incremental Cost Per New Transit Trip

Annualized cost per new transit trip.

Environmental Environmental Environmental Environmental Benefits and Benefits and Benefits and Benefits and ImpactsImpactsImpactsImpacts

Air Quality Air quality degradation at hot spots due to increased congestion.

Noise and Vibration Noise and vibration increases at adjacent properties based on the approximate number of noise-sensitive receptors adjacent to the alignments.

Geotechnical Ground disturbance and significant volumes of excavated soils during construction. Locations in close proximity to or crossing (and thereby exposed) to geotechnical hazards such as liquefaction or Alquist-Priolo fault rupture hazard zones.

Visual and Aesthetic Removal of visual resources such as street trees or the creation of visual clutter and obstruction of key views due to new structures.

Historic and Cultural Resources Potential to encounter archaeological, paleontological, or historic resources during construction.

Greenhouse Gases Potential reductions in VMT and proportional reductions in greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Parklands Presence of adjacent parklands and the potential to result in right-of-way (ROW), noise, or visual impacts on these parklands.

Traffic, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Level of service (LOS) degradation, pedestrian conflicts, opportunities for bicyclists.

Community Disruption and Displacement

Acquisition of ROW and residential or business displacements. Diminishing access to local properties or creating barriers to pedestrian or motor vehicle circulation.

Hazardous Materials Volume of excavation and potential for encountering contaminated soils and groundwater. Significant ground disturbance in proximity to hazardous materials generators or known contaminated sites.

Biological Resources Removal of street trees, affecting nesting birds and sensitive biological habitat.

Construction Temporary lane closures and traffic disruption, in addition to noise and vibration, air quality (dust emissions) impacts during construction.

Accessibility - Transit Dependent Population

Low income households, low vehicle ownership households, and youth and senior populations in proximity to the corridor.

Construction Employment Generation

The estimated number of construction jobs, indirect jobs from construction expenditures, and induced jobs from construction expenditures.

Construction-related Takes Potential loss of jobs, loss of aggregate wages, loss of retail sales, and loss of property tax.

Economic Development Net impact on jobs growth, net impact on aggregate wages, net impact on retails sales tax, and net impact on property taxes.

Transit Supportive Land Use Job-generating land uses by density, residential land uses by density.

Economic and Land Economic and Land Economic and Land Economic and Land Use ConsiderationsUse ConsiderationsUse ConsiderationsUse Considerations


Regional Regional Regional Regional ConnectivityConnectivityConnectivityConnectivity

Cost-EffectivenessCost-EffectivenessCost-EffectivenessCost-Effectiveness


Page 59

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----1 1 1 1 –––– Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures (continued)Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures (continued)Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures (continued)Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures (continued) Evaluation CriteriaEvaluation CriteriaEvaluation CriteriaEvaluation Criteria

Local and Regional Plan Consistency The general compliance of each alternative to adopted land use plans.

Community Integration and Input Public comments from the community meetings.

Integrate Backbone Bike Network and Pedestrian Linkages

The potential for integration and accommodation of various alternatives to the City's Backbone Bike Network and pedestrian linkages.

Impact to On-Street Parking The potential loss of on-street parking spaces.

Safety and Security The degree of safety and security perceived by passengers.

Physical Environment The type of environment created , and whether the community will be divided or segregated.

Financial CapabilityFinancial CapabilityFinancial CapabilityFinancial Capability Feasibility of Construction Within LRTP allocation

Capital construction costs for each alternative, which may include the construction of a guideway, stations, vehicles, and supporting facilities were evaluated to determine the potential fiscal impacts and cost effectiveness of each alternative. The East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor project only has approximately $170.1 million allocated as part of the LRTP, any costs in excess of this amount will need to be funded by other sources

Community InputCommunity InputCommunity InputCommunity Input


4.44.44.44.4 RRRRIDERSHIP IDERSHIP IDERSHIP IDERSHIP MMMMODELINGODELINGODELINGODELING

The ridership data was generated from Metro’s Model which was reviewed with FTA in September 2009 and FTA concurred the model was ready for forecasting. The study area was divided into four Districts encompassing 97 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs.) The South Corridor District from the southern boundary south of Ventura Boulevard to Oxnard Street includes 12 TAZs. The Civic Center District is defined as the area between Oxnard Street and the Ventura County Metrolink Line and has 18 TAZs. The Central Corridor District is north of the Civic Center District, includes 35 TAZs and is defined as the area from the Metrolink Line north to Interstate 5 (I-5). The North Corridor District is the largest in terms of acreage of the four Districts it includes the area from north of I-5 to approximately one-quarter mile north of Foothill Boulevard, in this District the corridor changes to northeast-southwest oriented, and includes 32 TAZs. In addition to the No Build and TSM alternatives, a total of six build alternatives were modeled as part of the ridership forecasting efforts. In coordination with Metro, an operating plan was developed for each alternative. This plan considered physical constraints and design criteria, including a detailed description of the network of bus routes and fixed guideway lines (included Metro, LADOT, and Metrolink service), route alignment, peak and base headways, type of equipment, operating speeds, station locations, parking availability, and other physical and operational factors. These plans were translated into travel forecasting networks.

Specific ridership forecasting performance measures that were evaluated during the screening of alternatives included the following:

o Study Area Transit Ridership - The daily study area transit trips were calculated by aggregating all the transit trips that were either produced (began) or attracted (ended) in the study area, this also includes those trips that both started and ended


Page 60

in the study area. This does not include the transit trips that travel through the study area.

o Annual Hours of Transit User Benefit - User benefits are similar to travel time

savings, but more comprehensive, as user benefits include the time savings for new riders as well as existing riders. User benefits are estimated from the travel demand forecasting model runs for the various build alternatives, relative to the baseline alternative. User benefits or disbenefits are assumed to arise due to changes in mobility for individual travelers that are caused by a project (or policy) and are measured in hours of travel time and aggregated over all travelers. For example, when an alternative’s improvements cause changes in travel behavior that result in a change in mobility, such as shorter travel times (including wait time, in-vehicle time, or access time), or fewer transfers, this change may have benefits to new transit riders and to existing riders.

o New Transit Trips - The new transit trips (or new riders) for each alternative are

simply the number of additional trips that the build alternative attracts over the TSM Alternative. These new riders would not be making their trip on transit without the addition of the new (or improved) service.

o Study Area Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction - Vehicle miles of travel are an

indicator of the amount of roadway travel. Generally, the higher the VMT the more roadway trips and the fewer transit trips on the system, as trips move out of autos and onto transit the VMT declines. However, given by 2035 there will be approximately 1.7 million daily person trips in the study area and of those three to four percent use transit, so to affect much of a change in VMT a large change away from single occupancy vehicles would be necessary. The change in VMT from the relative small change in transit service in the study area is minimal and variable depending on the trip changing modes and its associated trip length.

o Vehicular Traffic Travel Time - Vehicle-hours of delay is a common indicator to

measure the level of congestion on the roadway network. It is calculated by determining the difference between the congested travel time and the free flow travel time, then multiplying that difference by the link volume for each roadway segment within the study area. As new transit services are added into the corridor providing more options travel patterns change and to a lesser extent trips may shift from auto to transit. Thus, the level of congestion on some roadway segments will be slightly eased.

4.54.54.54.5 TTTTIER IER IER IER IIII EEEEVALUATION VALUATION VALUATION VALUATION

How was the Tier I screening of alternatives evaluated?How was the Tier I screening of alternatives evaluated?How was the Tier I screening of alternatives evaluated?How was the Tier I screening of alternatives evaluated? The two-stage Tier I screening analysis involved a general evaluation of the build alternatives based on collected data including demographics, land use patterns, transit ridership, traffic circulation, planning policies, and professional judgment related to the evaluation criteria and performance measures.


Page 61

The initial alternatives were comparatively rated based upon the evaluation criteria utilizing a scale of high, medium, and low, with high representing ‘best’, medium representing ‘good’ and low representing ‘less good’. For the Tier I screening, the scores were equally weighted.

4444....5555.1..1..1..1. Stage IStage IStage IStage I

In Stage I of the Tier I screening process, an evaluation of three modes, 12 configurations, and 14 route alignments for a total of 29 options were evaluated independent of one another to determine the most feasible options for this project. The following tables highlight the performance measures that were evaluated for the presence of potential benefits and impacts related to each evaluation criteria. The primary determination whether or not to recommend an option are indicated by bold text within the table and/or by the community input and financial capability discussion that follows each section. 4.4.4.4.5555.1.1. .1.1. .1.1. .1.1. ModeModeModeMode Three modal options - bus rapid transit (BRT), streetcar, and light rail transit (LRT) - were screened to determine the feasibility of the project. The mode recommendations were evaluated based on the evaluation criteria and performance measures set forth and are described in the following section. Table 4-2 summarizes the general reasoning for determinations associated with each performance measure. 4.5.1.2.4.5.1.2.4.5.1.2.4.5.1.2. ConfigurationConfigurationConfigurationConfiguration Twelve configurations were evaluated based on the understanding that a large portion of the study area corridors have a right-of-way (ROW) width of 100 feet. These configurations include curbside, median-running, and side-running options, which have a varying number of travel lanes (one or two), transit lanes (one or two), and may or may not incorporate bike lanes and parking. The configuration option recommendations are detailed in the following section. Table 4-3 summarizes the reason for determinations of each performance measure. 4.4.4.4.5555.1.3..1.3..1.3..1.3. AlignmentAlignmentAlignmentAlignment Several routing alignment/terminus options were determined infeasible prior to the initial screening of the 14 routes described in this section. These options were pre-screened and are described in the Preliminary Definition of Alternatives report. The 14 alternatives that were evaluated in the Tier I screening process included alignments on Van Nuys Boulevard, Sepulveda Boulevard, and hybrids of the two corridors. Table 4-4 summarizes the general reasoning for determinations associated with each performance measure.


Page 62

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----2 2 2 2 –––– Recommended Mode OptionsRecommended Mode OptionsRecommended Mode OptionsRecommended Mode Options

ModeModeModeModeTravel & Mobility Benefits & Travel & Mobility Benefits & Travel & Mobility Benefits & Travel & Mobility Benefits &

ImpactsImpactsImpactsImpactsRegional ConnectivityRegional ConnectivityRegional ConnectivityRegional Connectivity Cost-EffectivenessCost-EffectivenessCost-EffectivenessCost-Effectiveness

Environmental Benefits & Environmental Benefits & Environmental Benefits & Environmental Benefits &

ImpactsImpactsImpactsImpacts

Economic & Land Use Economic & Land Use Economic & Land Use Economic & Land Use

ConsiderationsConsiderationsConsiderationsConsiderations

• BRT has a lower rider capacity

than LRT

• Ridership would be moderate

compared to LRT and streetcar

• Bus type is consistent with • Bus type is consistent with • Bus type is consistent with • Bus type is consistent with

Metro's existing bus fleet and Metro's existing bus fleet and Metro's existing bus fleet and Metro's existing bus fleet and

can be interlined with the can be interlined with the can be interlined with the can be interlined with the

existing MOLexisting MOLexisting MOLexisting MOL

• Can be used in mixed-flow • Can be used in mixed-flow • Can be used in mixed-flow • Can be used in mixed-flow

traffic in constrained locationstraffic in constrained locationstraffic in constrained locationstraffic in constrained locations

• Capital, operations, and • Capital, operations, and • Capital, operations, and • Capital, operations, and

maintenance costs would be maintenance costs would be maintenance costs would be maintenance costs would be

lower than streetcar and LRTlower than streetcar and LRTlower than streetcar and LRTlower than streetcar and LRT

• Visual and aesthetic impacts • Visual and aesthetic impacts • Visual and aesthetic impacts • Visual and aesthetic impacts

would be less would be less would be less would be less

• Grade separation would not • Grade separation would not • Grade separation would not • Grade separation would not

be requiredbe requiredbe requiredbe required

• Noise and vibration impacts • Noise and vibration impacts • Noise and vibration impacts • Noise and vibration impacts

would be less with BRTwould be less with BRTwould be less with BRTwould be less with BRT

• Construction would be less

intensive thus producing fewer

jobs

• BRT may increase economic

development but it largely

depends on the level of capital

investment *

• Streetcars have lower rider • Streetcars have lower rider • Streetcars have lower rider • Streetcars have lower rider

capacity than LRT, which capacity than LRT, which capacity than LRT, which capacity than LRT, which

might place a limit on its might place a limit on its might place a limit on its might place a limit on its

potential success. They are potential success. They are potential success. They are potential success. They are

often slower than buses and often slower than buses and often slower than buses and often slower than buses and

might have a lower rider might have a lower rider might have a lower rider might have a lower rider

throughput than buses.throughput than buses.throughput than buses.throughput than buses.

• Metro does not operate • Metro does not operate • Metro does not operate • Metro does not operate

streetcars and would need to streetcars and would need to streetcars and would need to streetcars and would need to

procure all technology and procure all technology and procure all technology and procure all technology and

facilitiesfacilitiesfacilitiesfacilities

• This mode would not comply • This mode would not comply • This mode would not comply • This mode would not comply

with the regional long range with the regional long range with the regional long range with the regional long range

mobility goals due to lower mobility goals due to lower mobility goals due to lower mobility goals due to lower

travel speedstravel speedstravel speedstravel speeds

• Capital, operations, and • Capital, operations, and • Capital, operations, and • Capital, operations, and

maintenance costs would be maintenance costs would be maintenance costs would be maintenance costs would be

higher than BRT but lower higher than BRT but lower higher than BRT but lower higher than BRT but lower

than LRTthan LRTthan LRTthan LRT

• Every additional new trip • Every additional new trip • Every additional new trip • Every additional new trip

would likely be more expensive would likely be more expensive would likely be more expensive would likely be more expensive

than the BRT and LRT options than the BRT and LRT options than the BRT and LRT options than the BRT and LRT options

due to smaller trainsdue to smaller trainsdue to smaller trainsdue to smaller trains

• Visual and aesthetic impacts • Visual and aesthetic impacts • Visual and aesthetic impacts • Visual and aesthetic impacts

would be greater due to would be greater due to would be greater due to would be greater due to

catenary systemcatenary systemcatenary systemcatenary system

• Grade separation may be • Grade separation may be • Grade separation may be • Grade separation may be

necessary depending on routenecessary depending on routenecessary depending on routenecessary depending on route

• Noise and vibration impacts

would be higher with rail

• Construction would be more

intensive thus increasing

employment

• Streetcar would increase

economic development as it is

similar to LRT and provides an

impression of permanance *

• LRT would provide higher • LRT would provide higher • LRT would provide higher • LRT would provide higher

capacity and improvements in capacity and improvements in capacity and improvements in capacity and improvements in

end-to-end travel time end-to-end travel time end-to-end travel time end-to-end travel time

• Ridership would be higher • Ridership would be higher • Ridership would be higher • Ridership would be higher

than the other two modesthan the other two modesthan the other two modesthan the other two modes

• Metro operates several LRT • Metro operates several LRT • Metro operates several LRT • Metro operates several LRT

services services services services

• Complies with the long range • Complies with the long range • Complies with the long range • Complies with the long range

mobility goals by providing mobility goals by providing mobility goals by providing mobility goals by providing

connectivity and improving connectivity and improving connectivity and improving connectivity and improving

travel for the regiontravel for the regiontravel for the regiontravel for the region

• LRT maintenance facilities do

not exist in the Valley

• Capital, operations, and

maintenance costs would be the

highest of all the mode options

• Visual and aesthetic impacts

would be greater due to catenary

system

• Grade separation may be

necessary depending on route

• Noise and vibration impacts

would be higher with rail

• Construction would be more • Construction would be more • Construction would be more • Construction would be more

intensive thus increasing intensive thus increasing intensive thus increasing intensive thus increasing

employmentemploymentemploymentemployment

• LRT would increase economic • LRT would increase economic • LRT would increase economic • LRT would increase economic

development due to the higher development due to the higher development due to the higher development due to the higher

capital investment and capital investment and capital investment and capital investment and

impression of premanance *impression of premanance *impression of premanance *impression of premanance *

Recommendation: BRT TO ADVANCE TO STAGE IIRecommendation: BRT TO ADVANCE TO STAGE IIRecommendation: BRT TO ADVANCE TO STAGE IIRecommendation: BRT TO ADVANCE TO STAGE II

Recommendation: STREETCAR ELIMINATEDRecommendation: STREETCAR ELIMINATEDRecommendation: STREETCAR ELIMINATEDRecommendation: STREETCAR ELIMINATED

Recommendation: LRT TO ADVANCE TO STAGE IIRecommendation: LRT TO ADVANCE TO STAGE IIRecommendation: LRT TO ADVANCE TO STAGE IIRecommendation: LRT TO ADVANCE TO STAGE II

* United States General Accounting Office (GAO) reports on BRT (GAO-12-811;GAO-01-984) note that economic development associated with LRT are generally due to the higher capital investments which provides the

impression of permanence. Therefore, BRT projects that closely resemble LRT have a higher likelihood of similar economic development.

The BRT mode was recommended for further analysis because it would improve end-to-end travel time in the east San Fernando Valley. The mode is compatible with the existing Metro bus

fleet, provided that loading occurs on the right side and center platforms are not used, and would require the least amount of capital cost investment and presents lower environmental

impacts.

The streetcar mode was recommended for elimination due to the limitation on end-to-end travel time savings. Streetcars are generally used as circulators, operate in mixed-flow traffic, and

are not as effective in providing mobility for long corridors as compared to BRT and LRT options. Additionally, Metro does not currently operate streetcar as part of their transit system thus

not providing any system compatibility. Overall, this mode would have high capital, operations, and maintenance costs.

This configuration was recommended for further analysis because it would improve end-to-end mobility in the east San Fernando Valley. It has a high level of public support and would

provide economic development opportunities for the area while increasing connectivity and mobility to the community.


Page 63

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----3 3 3 3 –––– Recommended Configuration OptionsRecommended Configuration OptionsRecommended Configuration OptionsRecommended Configuration Options

• Peak-hour curbside

operation

• Curbside stops

• 2 Travel lanes/direction

• Bike lanes shared with bus

• Off-peak on-street parking

Travel & Mobili ty Travel & Mobili ty Travel & Mobili ty Travel & Mobili ty

Benefi ts & ImpactsBenefi ts & ImpactsBenefi ts & ImpactsBenefi ts & Impacts

Regional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi ty


Environmental Environmental Environmental Environmental




C1 CONFIGURATIONC1 CONFIGURATIONC1 CONFIGURATIONC1 CONFIGURATION

• Construction-related activities would be less intensive with a curbside configuration;

therefore, providing less construction employment generation

• Minimal, if any, geotechnical, historic and cultural, biological, parkland, hazardous

material, and air quality impacts would be expected

• No visual and aesthetic and construction impacts would be expected with • No visual and aesthetic and construction impacts would be expected with • No visual and aesthetic and construction impacts would be expected with • No visual and aesthetic and construction impacts would be expected with

this alternativethis alternativethis alternativethis alternative

• Minimal property displacements would be expected• Minimal property displacements would be expected• Minimal property displacements would be expected• Minimal property displacements would be expected

• This configuration would require minimal construction, only signage, re-• This configuration would require minimal construction, only signage, re-• This configuration would require minimal construction, only signage, re-• This configuration would require minimal construction, only signage, re-

striping, and signal modificationsstriping, and signal modificationsstriping, and signal modificationsstriping, and signal modifications

• Because of the lower overall costs, every addi tional rider/cost per new trip • Because of the lower overall costs, every addi tional rider/cost per new trip • Because of the lower overall costs, every addi tional rider/cost per new trip • Because of the lower overall costs, every addi tional rider/cost per new trip

would be less than any other configurationwould be less than any other configurationwould be less than any other configurationwould be less than any other configuration

•••• Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs would be largely dependent on mode and

operating characteristics. For BRT guideway alternatives, costs would include

additional vehicles, stations, and guideway maintenance. The rail alternatives would

include train sets, power signaling, communication, vehicle and rail guideway

maintenance.

• Intermodal connectivity would provide transfer points to other regional transit

services

• Transit mobility, as set forth as a goal, should be enhanced during peak-hour

operations

• Connections to regional transit service is dependent upon the alignment

• Modest improvement of end-to-end transit travel time savings are • Modest improvement of end-to-end transit travel time savings are • Modest improvement of end-to-end transit travel time savings are • Modest improvement of end-to-end transit travel time savings are

anticipated with this configuration due to exclusive bus lane operations anticipated with this configuration due to exclusive bus lane operations anticipated with this configuration due to exclusive bus lane operations anticipated with this configuration due to exclusive bus lane operations

occurring only during peak-times, resulting in a slight increase in overall occurring only during peak-times, resulting in a slight increase in overall occurring only during peak-times, resulting in a slight increase in overall occurring only during peak-times, resulting in a slight increase in overall

ridershipridershipridershipridership

• Improved journey time would probably be minimal because conflicts would • Improved journey time would probably be minimal because conflicts would • Improved journey time would probably be minimal because conflicts would • Improved journey time would probably be minimal because conflicts would

continue to occur with right-turning vehicles, bicyclists, and parkingcontinue to occur with right-turning vehicles, bicyclists, and parkingcontinue to occur with right-turning vehicles, bicyclists, and parkingcontinue to occur with right-turning vehicles, bicyclists, and parking

• Additional corridor mobi lity benefi ts would be realized by the • Additional corridor mobi lity benefi ts would be realized by the • Additional corridor mobi lity benefi ts would be realized by the • Additional corridor mobi lity benefi ts would be realized by the

accommodation of shared bike lanes and vehicle turn-pockets throughout accommodation of shared bike lanes and vehicle turn-pockets throughout accommodation of shared bike lanes and vehicle turn-pockets throughout accommodation of shared bike lanes and vehicle turn-pockets throughout

corridor where feasiblecorridor where feasiblecorridor where feasiblecorridor where feasible

This configuration was recommended for further analysis because it requires the least amount of capital cost

investment, presents minimal environmental impacts while providing improved peak-hour transit service.

RECOMMENDATION: ADVANCE TO STAGE IIRECOMMENDATION: ADVANCE TO STAGE IIRECOMMENDATION: ADVANCE TO STAGE IIRECOMMENDATION: ADVANCE TO STAGE II

FEATURESFEATURESFEATURESFEATURES


Page 64

TabTabTabTable 4le 4le 4le 4----3 3 3 3 –––– Recommended Configuration Options (continued)Recommended Configuration Options (continued)Recommended Configuration Options (continued)Recommended Configuration Options (continued)

• Median-running operation

• Center platforms

• 1 Travel lane/direction

• Bike lanes

• On-street parking

Travel & Travel & Travel & Travel &

Mobility Mobility Mobility Mobility

Benefits & Benefits & Benefits & Benefits &


Regional Regional Regional Regional

ConnectivityConnectivityConnectivityConnectivity

Cost-Cost-Cost-Cost-

EffectivenessEffectivenessEffectivenessEffectiveness




Economic & Economic & Economic & Economic &

Land Use Land Use Land Use Land Use


• The capital cost of this configuration would be higher than the side-running configurations as

it requires construction of the median guideway, stations, and other roadway/intersection

improvements

• Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs would be largely dependent on mode and operating

characteristics. For BRT guideway alternatives, costs would include additional vehicles, stations,

and guideway maintenance. The rail alternatives would include train sets, power signaling,

communication, vehicle and rail guideway maintenance.

• Minimal geotechnical, historic and cultural, biological, parkland, hazardous material impacts

would be expected based on an at-grade analysis

• Traffic congestion would increase due to the reduced lane capacity to one-lane per • Traffic congestion would increase due to the reduced lane capacity to one-lane per • Traffic congestion would increase due to the reduced lane capacity to one-lane per • Traffic congestion would increase due to the reduced lane capacity to one-lane per

direction direction direction direction

• Construction-related activities would likely be more intensive; therefore, providing more

construction employment generation

This configuration was recommended for elimination due to the reduced number of travel lanes (one-lane per

direction) that would impact traffic in the study area. Mode specifics include an unconventional BRT operation

(contra-flow); LRT would not encounter this problem.

RECOMMENDATION: ELIMINATEDRECOMMENDATION: ELIMINATEDRECOMMENDATION: ELIMINATEDRECOMMENDATION: ELIMINATED

M1 CONFIGURATIONM1 CONFIGURATIONM1 CONFIGURATIONM1 CONFIGURATION


• End-to-end transit travel time savings would be expected to improve with the median-running

alignment due to reduced vehicle conflicts

• Provides only one travel lane per direction for mixed-flow traffic• Provides only one travel lane per direction for mixed-flow traffic• Provides only one travel lane per direction for mixed-flow traffic• Provides only one travel lane per direction for mixed-flow traffic

• Vehicles turning right would delay vehicles traveling through the intersection and • Vehicles turning right would delay vehicles traveling through the intersection and • Vehicles turning right would delay vehicles traveling through the intersection and • Vehicles turning right would delay vehicles traveling through the intersection and

prohibit/reduce turning movements at some intersectionsprohibit/reduce turning movements at some intersectionsprohibit/reduce turning movements at some intersectionsprohibit/reduce turning movements at some intersections

• Additional corridor mobility benefits would be realized by the accommodation of bike lanes

and vehicle turn-pockets throughout corridor where feasible

• Transit mobility, as set forth as a goal, should be enhanced with the median-• Transit mobility, as set forth as a goal, should be enhanced with the median-• Transit mobility, as set forth as a goal, should be enhanced with the median-• Transit mobility, as set forth as a goal, should be enhanced with the median-

running operations; however, for regional mobility this would reduce the mixed-flow running operations; however, for regional mobility this would reduce the mixed-flow running operations; however, for regional mobility this would reduce the mixed-flow running operations; however, for regional mobility this would reduce the mixed-flow

lanes to one lane per directionlanes to one lane per directionlanes to one lane per directionlanes to one lane per direction



Page 65

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----3 3 3 3 –––– Recommended Configuration Options (continued)Recommended Configuration Options (continued)Recommended Configuration Options (continued)Recommended Configuration Options (continued)

• Single lane median-running

operation



• Bike lanes



Benefits & ImpactsBenefits & ImpactsBenefits & ImpactsBenefits & Impacts


Connectivi tyConnectivi tyConnectivi tyConnectivi ty




Economic & Land Economic & Land Economic & Land Economic & Land

Use ConsiderationsUse ConsiderationsUse ConsiderationsUse Considerations

• The capital cost would be higher than the curbside running alternative as it

requires construction of median-running guideway, stations, and other roadway

intersection improvements

• Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs would be largely dependent on

mode and operating characteristics. For BRT guideway alternatives, costs

would include additional vehicles, stations, and guideway maintenance. The

rail alternatives would include train sets, power signaling, communication,

vehicle and rail guideway maintenance.

• Minimal geotechnical, historic and cultural, biological, parkland, hazardous

material impacts would be expected based on an at-grade analysis

• Visual and aesthetic and construction impacts would be expected

• Construction-related activities would likely be more intensive; therefore,

providing more construction employment generation

This configuration was recommended for elimination due to the unconventional and limited operation,

which would not benefit the overall end-to-end bidirectional transit mobility. This type of operation

would be inefficient for end-to-end mobility because of the continual wait time.



• Ridership increases would be expected to be low due to the • Ridership increases would be expected to be low due to the • Ridership increases would be expected to be low due to the • Ridership increases would be expected to be low due to the

decreased travel speeds associated with the single transi t lanedecreased travel speeds associated with the single transi t lanedecreased travel speeds associated with the single transi t lanedecreased travel speeds associated with the single transi t lane

• Modest improvement to end-to-end transi t travel time savings due • Modest improvement to end-to-end transi t travel time savings due • Modest improvement to end-to-end transi t travel time savings due • Modest improvement to end-to-end transi t travel time savings due

to single transi t laneto single transi t laneto single transi t laneto single transi t lane

• Additional corridor mobility benefits would be realized by the accommodation

of bike lanes and vehicle turn-pockets throughout corridor where feasible


services

• Transit mobi li ty would be minimal because there would be an • Transit mobi li ty would be minimal because there would be an • Transit mobi li ty would be minimal because there would be an • Transit mobi li ty would be minimal because there would be an

increase in head-on transi t vehicle conflicts due to single lane increase in head-on transi t vehicle conflicts due to single lane increase in head-on transi t vehicle conflicts due to single lane increase in head-on transi t vehicle conflicts due to single lane

operations requiring that transit vehicles wait until the lane is clearoperations requiring that transit vehicles wait until the lane is clearoperations requiring that transit vehicles wait until the lane is clearoperations requiring that transit vehicles wait until the lane is clear




Page 66






Travel & Mobility Travel & Mobility Travel & Mobility Travel & Mobility

Benefi ts & Benefi ts & Benefi ts & Benefi ts &









Use Use Use Use


• The capital cost for median-running configurations would be higher than the curbside

running alternative as it requires construction of median-running guideway, stations,

and other roadway/intersection improvements

• Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs would be largely dependent on mode and




maintenance.• Minimal geotechnical, historic and cultural, biological, parkland, hazardous material

impacts would be expected based on an at-grade analysis.

• Visual and aesthetic impacts would be expected with this alternative

• Construction-related activities would likely be more intensive; therefore, providing

more construction employment generation

Although this configuration would provide travel and mobility benefits capturing higher annual transit

ridership and improving journey times and reducing VMT, it was recommended for elimination due to non-

compliance with the City of LA 2010 Bike Plan with the exclusion of bike lanes.



• End-to-end transit travel time savings are expected to improve with the median-

running configurations due to reduced vehicle conflicts

• Additional corridor mobility benefits would be realized by the accommodation vehicle

turn-pockets throughout corridor where feasible


services

• Transit mobility, as set forth as a goal, should be enhanced with the median-running

operations as there would be a reduction in conflicts




Page 67





• Bike lanes












Use Use Use Use


• The capital cost for median-running configurations would be higher than the

curbside running alternative as it requires construction of median-running

guideway, stations, and other roadway intersection improvements

• Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs would be largely dependent on mode

and operating characteristics. For BRT guideway alternatives, costs would include

additional vehicles, stations, and guideway maintenance. The rail alternatives

would include train sets, power signaling, communication, vehicle and rail

guideway maintenance.


material impacts would be expected based on an at-grade analysis.




This configuration is similar to Configuration M3; however, it was recommended for further analysis

because in addition to the possible travel and mobility benefits it would provide bike lanes thus

complying with the City of LA 2010 Bike Plan.





• Addi tional corridor mobility benefits would be realized by the • Addi tional corridor mobility benefits would be realized by the • Addi tional corridor mobility benefits would be realized by the • Addi tional corridor mobility benefits would be realized by the

accommodation of bike lanes and vehicle turn-pockets throughout accommodation of bike lanes and vehicle turn-pockets throughout accommodation of bike lanes and vehicle turn-pockets throughout accommodation of bike lanes and vehicle turn-pockets throughout

corridor where feasiblecorridor where feasiblecorridor where feasiblecorridor where feasible


services

• Transit mobility, as set forth as a goal, should be enhanced with the median-

running operations as there would be a reduction in conflicts




Page 68

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----3 3 3 3 –––– RecomRecomRecomRecommended Configuration Options (continued)mended Configuration Options (continued)mended Configuration Options (continued)mended Configuration Options (continued)


• Side platforms


• Bike lanes










EnvironmentEnvironmentEnvironmentEnvironment

al Benefits & al Benefits & al Benefits & al Benefits &




ConsideratioConsideratioConsideratioConsideratio

• The capital cost of this configuration would be higher than the curbside running

alternative as it requires construction of median-running guideway, stations, and

other roadway/intersection improvements







material, visual and construction impacts would be expected with this configuration

based on an at-grade analysis

• Traffic congestion would increase due to the reduced lane capacity to one-• Traffic congestion would increase due to the reduced lane capacity to one-• Traffic congestion would increase due to the reduced lane capacity to one-• Traffic congestion would increase due to the reduced lane capacity to one-

lane per directionlane per directionlane per directionlane per direction

• Construction-related activities would likely be more intensive with this

configuration; therefore, providing more construction employment generation

This configuration was recommended for elimination because it would impact vehicular travel

time. This configuration is the similar to Configuration M1 except for the station location (M1 –

center platform; M5 – side platform).



• End-to-end transit travel time savings would be expected to improve with the

median-running alignment due to reduced vehicle conflicts

• Provides only one travel lane per direction for mixed-flow traffic• Provides only one travel lane per direction for mixed-flow traffic• Provides only one travel lane per direction for mixed-flow traffic• Provides only one travel lane per direction for mixed-flow traffic

• Additional corridor mobility benefits would be realized by the accommodation of

bike lanes and vehicle turn-pockets throughout corridor where feasible


services

• Transit mobility, as set forth as a goal, should be enhanced with the • Transit mobility, as set forth as a goal, should be enhanced with the • Transit mobility, as set forth as a goal, should be enhanced with the • Transit mobility, as set forth as a goal, should be enhanced with the

median-running operations; however, for regional mobility this would median-running operations; however, for regional mobility this would median-running operations; however, for regional mobility this would median-running operations; however, for regional mobility this would

reduce the mixed-flow lanes to one lane per directionreduce the mixed-flow lanes to one lane per directionreduce the mixed-flow lanes to one lane per directionreduce the mixed-flow lanes to one lane per direction




Page 69



• Side platforms














Use Use Use Use



guideway, stations, and other roadway/intersection improvements











This configuration is the similar to Configuration M3 except for the station location (M3 – center

platform; M6 – side platform). Like M3, this configuration was recommended for elimination due to non-

compliance with the City of LA 2010 Bike Plan with the exclusion of bike lanes.





• Additional corridor mobility benefits would be realized by the accommodation of

vehicle turn-pockets throughout corridor where feasible


services






Page 70



• Side platforms


• Bike lanes












Use Use Use Use



guideway, stations, and other roadway/intersection improvements











This configuration was recommended for further analysis because it was determined that even though

the capital cost would be higher than other configurations, it would provide travel and mobility benefits

capturing higher annual transit ridership and improving journey times and reducing VMT within the

study area along with providing bike lanes thus complying with the City of LA 2010 Bike Plan. This

configuration is the similar to Configuration M4 except for the station location (M4 – center platform; M7

– side platform).





• Addi tional corridor mobility benefi ts would be realized by the • Addi tional corridor mobility benefi ts would be realized by the • Addi tional corridor mobility benefi ts would be realized by the • Addi tional corridor mobility benefi ts would be realized by the

accommodation of bike lanes and vehicle turn-pockets throughout accommodation of bike lanes and vehicle turn-pockets throughout accommodation of bike lanes and vehicle turn-pockets throughout accommodation of bike lanes and vehicle turn-pockets throughout


services






Page 71


• Side-running operation

• Curbside stops


• Bike lanes













Use Use Use Use


• Capital cost would be lower than median running configurations


and operating characteristics. For BRT guideway alternatives, costs would

include additional vehicles, stations, and guideway maintenance. The rail

alternatives would include train sets, power signaling, communication, vehicle

and rail guideway maintenance.


material impacts would be expected

• Traffic congestion would increase due to reduced lane capacity of one • Traffic congestion would increase due to reduced lane capacity of one • Traffic congestion would increase due to reduced lane capacity of one • Traffic congestion would increase due to reduced lane capacity of one

travel lane per directiontravel lane per directiontravel lane per directiontravel lane per direction

• Construction-related activities would likely be less intensive than median-

running configurations; therefore, providing less construction employment

generation

This configuration was recommended for elimination due to the higher capital cost investment and

reduced mixed-flow travel lanes (one-lane per direction) generating limited improvement to transit

mobility as compared to Configuration C1.

S1 CONFIGURATIONS1 CONFIGURATIONS1 CONFIGURATIONS1 CONFIGURATION


• Improved transit mobili ty would be minimal because conflicts would • Improved transit mobili ty would be minimal because conflicts would • Improved transit mobili ty would be minimal because conflicts would • Improved transit mobili ty would be minimal because conflicts would

continue to occur with right-turning vehicles, bicyclists, and parking continue to occur with right-turning vehicles, bicyclists, and parking continue to occur with right-turning vehicles, bicyclists, and parking continue to occur with right-turning vehicles, bicyclists, and parking

vehiclesvehiclesvehiclesvehicles

• Provides one-travel lane per direction• Provides one-travel lane per direction• Provides one-travel lane per direction• Provides one-travel lane per direction




services




Page 72

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----3 3 3 3 –––– Recommended ConfiguRecommended ConfiguRecommended ConfiguRecommended Configuration Options (continued)ration Options (continued)ration Options (continued)ration Options (continued)


• Curbside stops


• Bike lanes











ImpactsImpactsImpactsImpactsEconomic & Economic & Economic & Economic &



• Capital cost for this configuration would be less than median-running configurations


characteristics. For BRT guideway alternatives, costs would include additional vehicles, stations, and

guideway maintenance. The rail alternatives would include train sets, power signaling,

communication, vehicle and rail guideway maintenance.

• Minimal geotechnical, historic and cultural, biological, parkland, hazardous material impacts would

be expected with this configuration, based on an at-grade analysis

• Construction-related activities would likely be less intensive with side-running configurations.

Therefore, providing less construction employment generation

This configuration was recommended for elimination due to the higher capital cost investment and marginal annual

VMT reduction and limited improvement to transit mobility as compared to Configuration C1.



• Improved transit mobility would be minimal with this with this configuration because it • Improved transit mobility would be minimal with this with this configuration because it • Improved transit mobility would be minimal with this with this configuration because it • Improved transit mobility would be minimal with this with this configuration because it

would st ill encounter conflicts with other turning vehicles and bicycles would st ill encounter conflicts with other turning vehicles and bicycles would st ill encounter conflicts with other turning vehicles and bicycles would st ill encounter conflicts with other turning vehicles and bicycles

• Additional corridor mobility benefits would be realized by the accommodation of bike lanes and


• Intermodal connectivity would provide transfer points to other regional transit services




Page 73



• Curbside stops














Use Use Use Use


• Capital cost for side-running configurations would be less than median-running

configurations





maintenance.


material impacts would be expected with this configuration, based on an at-grade

analysis

• Construction-related activities would likely be less intensive with side-running

configurations; therefore, providing less construction employment generation

This configuration was recommended for elimination due to the higher capital cost investment and

marginal annual VMT reduction and limited improvement to transit mobility as compared to

Configuration C1. Additionally, this configuration does not support multi-modal mobility by not

providing bike lanes thus not complying with the City of LA 2010 Bike Plan.



• Improved transit mobi li ty would probably be minimal with this • Improved transit mobi li ty would probably be minimal with this • Improved transit mobi li ty would probably be minimal with this • Improved transit mobi li ty would probably be minimal with this

configuration because i t would still encounter some conflicts with other configuration because i t would still encounter some conflicts with other configuration because i t would still encounter some conflicts with other configuration because i t would still encounter some conflicts with other

turning vehicles, bicycles and parked vehiclesturning vehicles, bicycles and parked vehiclesturning vehicles, bicycles and parked vehiclesturning vehicles, bicycles and parked vehicles




services




Page 74


• Side-running operation in

mixed-flow traffic

• Curbside stops


shared with transit

• Bike lanes












• Capital cost for side-running configurations would be less than median-

running configurations

• Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs would be largely dependent on

mode and operating characteristics. For BRT guideway alternatives, costs

would include additional vehicles, stations, and guideway maintenance. The

rail alternatives would include train sets, power signaling, communication,

vehicle and rail guideway maintenance.

• Minimal, if any, geotechnical, historic and cultural, biological, parkland,

hazardous material impacts would be expected with this configuration

This configuration was recommended for elimination since there would be no improvement to travel

mobility due to continued conflicts with vehicles, bicyclists, and parking vehicles.



• No improvement of end-to-end transit travel time savings are • No improvement of end-to-end transit travel time savings are • No improvement of end-to-end transit travel time savings are • No improvement of end-to-end transit travel time savings are

anticipated with this configuration since it would be operating in anticipated with this configuration since it would be operating in anticipated with this configuration since it would be operating in anticipated with this configuration since it would be operating in

mixed-flow lanes and would encounter conflicts with other vehicles, mixed-flow lanes and would encounter conflicts with other vehicles, mixed-flow lanes and would encounter conflicts with other vehicles, mixed-flow lanes and would encounter conflicts with other vehicles,

bicycles and parked vehiclesbicycles and parked vehiclesbicycles and parked vehiclesbicycles and parked vehicles




services

• This configuration would not comply with the transit mobili ty goal • This configuration would not comply with the transit mobili ty goal • This configuration would not comply with the transit mobili ty goal • This configuration would not comply with the transit mobili ty goal

in providing better service than what is currently availablein providing better service than what is currently availablein providing better service than what is currently availablein providing better service than what is currently available




Page 75

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----4 4 4 4 –––– Recommended Route Alignment OptionsRecommended Route Alignment OptionsRecommended Route Alignment OptionsRecommended Route Alignment Options


Van Nuys Blvd./Ventura Blvd. - Van Nuys Blvd. - Van

Nuys Blvd./Foothill Blvd.

NOTE:

The minimum ROW width of 100 feet through the

entire corridor allows for a consistent cross-section

from end to end. The Metrolink grade crossing and the

potential California High Speed Rail corridor would

force streetcar and LRT operations onto a grade

separation, either aerial or underground, at San

Fernando Road

Travel & Mobi lity Travel & Mobi lity Travel & Mobi lity Travel & Mobi lity











Use Use Use Use


This route alignment was recommended for further review based on the high ridership potential, faster

journey times, access for transit dependent populations, public interest in the corridor, and potential for

economic development. It would provide key connections to several major hubs which include the Van

Nuys Amtrak/Metrolink Station, the MOL, and the future Sepulveda Pass Corridor project.


ROUTE 1ROUTE 1ROUTE 1ROUTE 1

• This route lies along various transit dependent communities along Van Nuys

Boulevard

• This route is expected to have a significant effect on economic • This route is expected to have a significant effect on economic • This route is expected to have a significant effect on economic • This route is expected to have a significant effect on economic

development as this route connects more commercial, civic and development as this route connects more commercial, civic and development as this route connects more commercial, civic and development as this route connects more commercial, civic and

recreational land uses than other alignmentsrecreational land uses than other alignmentsrecreational land uses than other alignmentsrecreational land uses than other alignments

• Minimal geotechnical, biological, hazardous material, visual and aesthetic

impacts, and property displacements would be expected but are dependent on

mode and configuration

• The capital costs for this route would be lower than other routes given that the

length of the alignment is shorter than the other routes






• This route provides intermodal connectivity with regional transit services that

includes Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, and MOL

• Connection with the future Sepulveda Pass Corridor project

• End-to-end transit travel time savings would be expected to improve as • End-to-end transit travel time savings would be expected to improve as • End-to-end transit travel time savings would be expected to improve as • End-to-end transit travel time savings would be expected to improve as

straighter routes would have faster journey timesstraighter routes would have faster journey timesstraighter routes would have faster journey timesstraighter routes would have faster journey times

• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van Nuys

Civic Center and in the City of San Fernando


Page 76

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----4 4 4 4 –––– Recommended Route AlignmenRecommended Route AlignmenRecommended Route AlignmenRecommended Route Alignment Options (continued)t Options (continued)t Options (continued)t Options (continued)


Sepulveda Blvd./Ventura Blvd. - Ventura Blvd. - Van Nuys

Blvd. - San Fernando Rd. - Truman St. - Sylmar/San

Fernando Metrolink Station

NOTE:

This alignment traverses constrained ROW along San

Fernando Road where the width is insufficient for rail

operations without extensive ROW acquisition. BRT buses

would need to operate in mixed-flow lanes in that portion

of the corridor.












Use Use Use Use


This route alignment was recommended for further review based on the high ridership potential,

intermodal connectivity to key transit hubs (Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station, Van Nuys

Amtrak/Metrolink Station, the MOL, and the future Sepulveda Pass Corridor project), access for transit

dependent populations, public interest in the corridor, and the potential for economic development.

• End-to-end transit travel time savings would be expected to improve as straighter

routes would have faster journey times

• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van • Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van • Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van • Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van

Nuys Civic Center and in the City of San FernandoNuys Civic Center and in the City of San FernandoNuys Civic Center and in the City of San FernandoNuys Civic Center and in the City of San Fernando

• Provides intermodal connectivity regional transit services that includes Van Nuys

Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, and Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station




• The capital costs for this route would be among the lowest compared to others given

the length of the alignment





maintenance.

• Minimal geotechnical, biological, hazardous material, visual and aesthetic impacts,

and property displacements would be expected but are dependent on mode and

configuration


Boulevard


development as this route connects more commercial, civic and recreational development as this route connects more commercial, civic and recreational development as this route connects more commercial, civic and recreational development as this route connects more commercial, civic and recreational

land uses than other alignmentsland uses than other alignmentsland uses than other alignmentsland uses than other alignments


Page 77

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----4444 –––– Recommended Route Alignment Options (continued)Recommended Route Alignment Options (continued)Recommended Route Alignment Options (continued)Recommended Route Alignment Options (continued)


Van Nuys Blvd./Ventura Blvd. - Van Nuys Blvd. -

Parthenia St. - Sepulveda Blvd. - Brand Blvd. - Truman St. -

Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station

NOTE:

This alignment is suitable for all modal operations,

although the Truman Street segment is narrow and may

require a reduction of the roadway to one traffic lane in

each direction to accommodate BRT, streetcar, or LRT.

BRT has the option of running in mixed-flow operations.












Use Use Use Use


This route alignment was recommended for elimination as it is expected to have a lower effect on economic

development (it has less commercial land use opportunities compared to similar alignments that could

generate more development), travel times will be moderate, and a Brand Boulevard alignment has public

opposition.



• Provides intermodal connectivity to regional transit services that includes Van Nuys



• Given the total length of this route, the capital costs would be expected to be more

moderate compared to the other routes





maintenance.

• Journey times are expected to be acceptable as the turns on this alignment would

affect speeds and the overall operations

• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van Nuys Civic

Center and the City of San Fernando

• Geotechnical and biological impacts could occur along Parthenia Street and over the

Pacoima Wash which may need to be covered for median-running configurations

• Minimal property displacements would be expected but are dependent on the mode

and configuration

• Connects the communities along Van Nuys Boulevard on the southern portion of

the corridor with highly transit dependent populations around Parthenia Street and

along Sepulveda Boulevard

• This route is expected to have a moderate effect on economic • This route is expected to have a moderate effect on economic • This route is expected to have a moderate effect on economic • This route is expected to have a moderate effect on economic

development as i t has less commercial land uses than other alignmentsdevelopment as i t has less commercial land uses than other alignmentsdevelopment as i t has less commercial land uses than other alignmentsdevelopment as i t has less commercial land uses than other alignments


Page 78



Van Nuys Blvd./Ventura Blvd. - Van Nuys Blvd. - Parthenia St. -

Sepulveda Blvd. - split couplet on Brand Blvd. & San Fernando

Mission Rd. - Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station

NOTE:

This alignment is suitable for all mode operations, although the

Truman Street segment is narrow and may require reduction of the

roadway to one traffic lane in each direction to accommodate BRT,

streetcar, or LRT. BRT has the option of running in mixed-flow

operations.












Use Use Use Use


This route alignment was recommended for elimination for reasons similar to Route 3. This alignment would be

expected to have a moderate effect on economic development, would have more traffic impacts due to the inclusion of

San Fernando Mission Boulevard as part of a one-way couplet alignment, and travel times would be moderate.


ROUTE 3SROUTE 3SROUTE 3SROUTE 3S

• This route provides intermodal connectivity to regional transit services that includes Van Nuys



• Due to the length of this alignment with the addition of the couplet , this route is • Due to the length of this alignment with the addition of the couplet , this route is • Due to the length of this alignment with the addition of the couplet , this route is • Due to the length of this alignment with the addition of the couplet , this route is

expected to have higher capi tal costs than other routesexpected to have higher capi tal costs than other routesexpected to have higher capi tal costs than other routesexpected to have higher capi tal costs than other routes


characteristics. For BRT guideway alternatives, costs would include additional vehicles,

stations, and guideway maintenance. The rail alternatives would include train sets, power

signaling, communication, vehicle and rail guideway maintenance.

• Journey times are expected to be moderate as the turns on this alignment would affect speeds

and the overall operation of the system

• Vehicular traffic travel time impacts are expected around the Van Nuys Civic Center and the

City of San Fernando

• Geotechnical and biological impacts could occur along Parthenia Street. This alignment will

travel on Parthenia Street, over the Pacoima Wash which may need to be covered for median-


• Minimal property displacements would be expected but are dependent on the mode and

configuration

• Minimal historic and cultural impact is anticipated as the corridor i s proposed to • Minimal historic and cultural impact is anticipated as the corridor i s proposed to • Minimal historic and cultural impact is anticipated as the corridor i s proposed to • Minimal historic and cultural impact is anticipated as the corridor i s proposed to

run adjacent to the San Fernando Mission. Vibration during construction could be run adjacent to the San Fernando Mission. Vibration during construction could be run adjacent to the San Fernando Mission. Vibration during construction could be run adjacent to the San Fernando Mission. Vibration during construction could be

an issuean issuean issuean issue

• Parklands would likely be impacted as Brand Park lies between Brand Boulevard • Parklands would likely be impacted as Brand Park lies between Brand Boulevard • Parklands would likely be impacted as Brand Park lies between Brand Boulevard • Parklands would likely be impacted as Brand Park lies between Brand Boulevard

and San Fernando Mission Boulevard; however, this also depends on the mode and and San Fernando Mission Boulevard; however, this also depends on the mode and and San Fernando Mission Boulevard; however, this also depends on the mode and and San Fernando Mission Boulevard; however, this also depends on the mode and

configurationconfigurationconfigurationconfiguration

• Connects the communities along Van Nuys Boulevard on the southern portion of the corridor

with highly transit dependent populations around Parthenia Street and along Sepulveda

Boulevard

• This route is expected to have a moderate effect on economic development as it has This route is expected to have a moderate effect on economic development as it has This route is expected to have a moderate effect on economic development as it has This route is expected to have a moderate effect on economic development as it has

less commercial land uses than other alignmentsless commercial land uses than other alignmentsless commercial land uses than other alignmentsless commercial land uses than other alignments


Page 79



Sepulveda Blvd./Ventura Blvd. - Sepulveda Blvd. - MOL -

Van Nuys Blvd. - Van Nuys Blvd./Foothill Blvd.

NOTE:

The existing Metrolink and Union Pacific tracks as well

as the potential California High Speed Rail would force

streetcar and LRT into a grade separation over or under

San Fernando Road.












Use Use Use Use


This route was recommended for further review as ridership would be high along this alignment. The

route would also connects to several transit services at the Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station,

Sepulveda and Van Nuys MOL Station, and the future Sepulveda Pass Corridor project.



• Intermodal connectivity to regional transit services includes Sepulveda and Van

Nuys MOL Stations, and Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station


• The capital costs for this route would be among the lowest compared to other

routes given the length of the alignment




include train sets, power signaling, communication, vehicle and rail guidway

maintenance.

• Journey times are expected to be moderate• Journey times are expected to be moderate• Journey times are expected to be moderate• Journey times are expected to be moderate

• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted in some areas – southern

portion of Sepulveda Boulevard and Van Nuys Boulevard around the Civic Center

• Minimal geotechnical, biological, hazardous material, visual and aesthetic impacts,

and property displacements would be expected but are dependent on mode and

configuration


Boulevard

• This route is expected to have a signi ficant effect on economic • This route is expected to have a signi ficant effect on economic • This route is expected to have a signi ficant effect on economic • This route is expected to have a signi ficant effect on economic

development as it connects numerous commercial, civic and recreational development as it connects numerous commercial, civic and recreational development as it connects numerous commercial, civic and recreational development as it connects numerous commercial, civic and recreational

land uses land uses land uses land uses


Page 80

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----4 4 4 4 –––– Recommended Route Alignment OptionRecommended Route Alignment OptionRecommended Route Alignment OptionRecommended Route Alignment Options (continued)s (continued)s (continued)s (continued)


Sepulveda Blvd./Ventura Blvd. - Sepulveda Blvd. -

Brand Blvd. - Truman St. - Sylmar/San Fernando

Metrolink Station

NOTE:

This alignment is suitable for BRT and rail

operations, although the Truman Street segment may

result in a reduced number of traffic lanes.












Use Use Use Use


This alternative was recommended for elimination based on the fact that there would not be

substantial improvements to mobility and connectivity. The route would not include key areas along

Van Nuys Boulevard that have higher transit dependent populations and transit ridership. There is

also high public opposition to a project on Brand Boulevard.



• This route provides intermodal connectivity to regional transit services that

includes Sepulveda MOL Station and Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station


• The capital costs for this route would be lower than other routes given the

length of the alignment


and operating characteristics. For BRT guideway alternatives, costs would

include additional vehicles, stations, and guideway maintenance. The rail

alternatives would include train sets, power signaling, communication, vehicle

and rail guideway maintenance.

• Journey times are expected to be moderate

• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be affected on the southern section of

the route on Sepulveda Boulevard and in the City of San Fernando

• Minimal geotechnical, biological, hazardous material impacts, and property

displacements would be expected but are dependent on mode and configuration

• Offers less accessibi li ty to the transit dependent population • Offers less accessibi li ty to the transit dependent population • Offers less accessibi li ty to the transit dependent population • Offers less accessibi li ty to the transit dependent population

compared to other routescompared to other routescompared to other routescompared to other routes

• The route would not have as significant of an effect on economic • The route would not have as significant of an effect on economic • The route would not have as significant of an effect on economic • The route would not have as significant of an effect on economic

development compared to other alignmentsdevelopment compared to other alignmentsdevelopment compared to other alignmentsdevelopment compared to other alignments


Page 81

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----4 4 4 4 –––– Recommended Route Alignment Options (continued)Recommended Route Alignment Options (continued)Recommended Route Alignment Options (continued)Recommended Route Alignment Options (continued)


Sepulveda Blvd./Ventura Blvd. - Sepulveda Blvd. - split couplet on

Brand Blvd. & San Fernando Mission Blvd. - Truman St. -


NOTE:

This alignment is suitable for BRT and rail operations, although

the Truman Street segment may result in a reduced number of

traffic lanes.












Use Use Use Use


This alternative was recommended for elimination based on the similar findings from Route 5 and would likely

have more impacts and capital costs due to the inclusion of San Fernando Mission Boulevard as part of a one-way

couplet alignment.



• Route provides intermodal connectivity to regional transit services that includes Sepulveda

MOL Station and Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station


• Due to the length of this alignment with the addition of the couplet , this route • Due to the length of this alignment with the addition of the couplet , this route • Due to the length of this alignment with the addition of the couplet , this route • Due to the length of this alignment with the addition of the couplet , this route

i s expected to have higher capital costs than other routesis expected to have higher capital costs than other routesis expected to have higher capital costs than other routesis expected to have higher capital costs than other routes


operating characteristics. For BRT guideway alternatives, costs would include additional

vehicles, stations, and guideway maintenance. The rail alternatives would include train sets,

power signaling, communication, vehicle and rail guidway maintenance.

• Journey times are expected to be moderate

• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be affected on the southern section of the route

on Sepulveda Boulevard, and in the City of San Fernando


configuration

• Minimal historic and cultural impact is anticipated as the corridor is proposed • Minimal historic and cultural impact is anticipated as the corridor is proposed • Minimal historic and cultural impact is anticipated as the corridor is proposed • Minimal historic and cultural impact is anticipated as the corridor is proposed

to run near the San Fernando Mission. Vibration during construction could be to run near the San Fernando Mission. Vibration during construction could be to run near the San Fernando Mission. Vibration during construction could be to run near the San Fernando Mission. Vibration during construction could be


• Parklands may be impacted as Brand Park lies between Brand Boulevard and • Parklands may be impacted as Brand Park lies between Brand Boulevard and • Parklands may be impacted as Brand Park lies between Brand Boulevard and • Parklands may be impacted as Brand Park lies between Brand Boulevard and

San Fernando Mission BoulevardSan Fernando Mission BoulevardSan Fernando Mission BoulevardSan Fernando Mission Boulevard

• The route offers less accessibility to the transit dependent population • The route offers less accessibility to the transit dependent population • The route offers less accessibility to the transit dependent population • The route offers less accessibility to the transit dependent population


• The route would not have as significant of an effect on economic development • The route would not have as significant of an effect on economic development • The route would not have as significant of an effect on economic development • The route would not have as significant of an effect on economic development

compared to other alignmentscompared to other alignmentscompared to other alignmentscompared to other alignments


Page 82




Van Nuys Blvd. - San Fernando Rd. - Truman St. -


NOTE:

Similar to Route 2, this alignment may be unsuited for

streetcar and LRT, due to the narrowness of the ROW

along San Fernando Road; ROW acquisition would be

necessary. BRT buses might have to operate in mixed-flow

on that segment.










ImpactsImpactsImpactsImpactsEconomic & Land Economic & Land Economic & Land Economic & Land

Use Use Use Use


This route was recommended for further review as it would connect to several transit services which

include the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station, Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, Sepulveda and

Van Nuys MOL Stations, and to the future Sepulveda Pass Corridor project. High ridership and public

support are expected along this alignment. Economic development opportunities would be available along

portions of Sepulveda Boulevard and Van Nuys Boulevard.



• Intermodal connectivity to regional transit services that includes Sepulveda and Van

Nuys MOL Stations, Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, and Sylmar/San Fernando

Metrolink Station


• The capital costs for this route would be among the lowest compared to other routes




include train sets, power signaling, communication, vehicle and rail guidway

maintenance.

• Journey times are expected to be moderate• Journey times are expected to be moderate• Journey times are expected to be moderate• Journey times are expected to be moderate


portion of Sepulveda Boulevard, Van Nuys Boulevard around the Civic Center, and

San Fernando Road

• Minimal geotechnical, biological, hazardous material, property displacement, and

visual impacts would be expected but are dependent on mode and configuration


Boulevard


development as this alignment connects numerous commercial, civic and development as this alignment connects numerous commercial, civic and development as this alignment connects numerous commercial, civic and development as this alignment connects numerous commercial, civic and

recreational land usesrecreational land usesrecreational land usesrecreational land uses


Page 83



Sepulveda Blvd./Ventura Blvd. - Sepulveda Blvd. - MOL - Van

Nuys Blvd. - Parthenia St. - Sepulveda Blvd. - Brand Blvd. -

Truman St. - Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station

NOTE:

This alignment is suitable for BRT, streetcar, and LRT

median-running operations, although the northern segment

on Truman Street might result in reduced traffic lanes.












Use Use Use Use


This route was recommended for further review, the despite pubic opposition along Brand Boulevard, as it

would connect to several transit services which include the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station, Van Nuys

Metrolink/Amtrak Station, Sepulveda and Van Nuys MOL Stations, and to the future Sepulveda Pass Corridor

project. High ridership is expected along this alignment as it would operate along major activity centers along

Sepulveda and Van Nuys Boulevard while providing improved journey time.



• Intermodal connectivity to regional transit services that includes Sepulveda • Intermodal connectivity to regional transit services that includes Sepulveda • Intermodal connectivity to regional transit services that includes Sepulveda • Intermodal connectivity to regional transit services that includes Sepulveda

and Van Nuys MOL Stations, Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, and Van Nuys MOL Stations, Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, and Van Nuys MOL Stations, Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, and Van Nuys MOL Stations, Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station,

Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink StationSylmar/San Fernando Metrolink StationSylmar/San Fernando Metrolink StationSylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station

• Connection with the future Sepulveda Pass Corridor project• Connection with the future Sepulveda Pass Corridor project• Connection with the future Sepulveda Pass Corridor project• Connection with the future Sepulveda Pass Corridor project

• The capital costs of this route would be expected to be higher than shorter routes



vehicles, stations, and guideway maintenance. The rail alternatives would include train

sets, power signaling, communication, vehicle and rail guideway maintenance.

• Journey times are expected to be moderate as the turns on this alignment • Journey times are expected to be moderate as the turns on this alignment • Journey times are expected to be moderate as the turns on this alignment • Journey times are expected to be moderate as the turns on this alignment

would affect speeds and the overall operation of the system. However, would affect speeds and the overall operation of the system. However, would affect speeds and the overall operation of the system. However, would affect speeds and the overall operation of the system. However,

portions of the route would operate along roadways with good LOSportions of the route would operate along roadways with good LOSportions of the route would operate along roadways with good LOSportions of the route would operate along roadways with good LOS


portion of Sepulveda Boulevard, Van Nuys Boulevard around the Civic Center, and

around the City of San Fernando

• Geotechnical and biological impacts could occur along Parthenia Street as the route will

travel over the Pacoima Wash, which may need to be covered for median-running

configurations


configuration

• Compared to other routes, this alignment offers moderate accessibility to the transit

dependent population

• This route would be expected to increase economic development as it connects

numerous commercial, civic and recreational land uses, although not as high as other

routes that traverse Pacoima


Page 84

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----4 4 4 4 –––– Recommended Route Alignment Options (coRecommended Route Alignment Options (coRecommended Route Alignment Options (coRecommended Route Alignment Options (continued)ntinued)ntinued)ntinued)


Sepulveda Blvd./Ventura Blvd. - Sepulveda Blvd. - MOL - Van Nuys

Blvd. - Parthenia St. - Sepulveda Blvd. - split couplet on Brand Blvd.

& San Fernando Mission Blvd. - Truman St. - Sylmar/San Fernando

Metrolink Station

NOTE:

This alignment is suitable for BRT, streetcar, and LRT median-

running operations, although the northern segment on Truman

Street might result in reduced traffic lanes.








Envi ronmental Envi ronmental Envi ronmental Envi ronmental




Use Use Use Use


This route alignment was recommended for elimination. This route is similar to Route 7; however, with the

addition of San Fernando Mission Boulevard as part of a couplet, the environmental impacts and project costs would

be higher.



• Intermodal connectivity to regional transit services that includes Sepulveda and Van Nuys

MOL Stations, Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station


• Due to the length of this alignment with the addition of the couplet, this route is • Due to the length of this alignment with the addition of the couplet, this route is • Due to the length of this alignment with the addition of the couplet, this route is • Due to the length of this alignment with the addition of the couplet, this route is

expected to have higher capital costs than other routesexpected to have higher capital costs than other routesexpected to have higher capital costs than other routesexpected to have higher capital costs than other routes




power signaling, communication, vehicle and rail guideway maintenance.

• Journey times are expected to be acceptable as the turns on this alignment would affect speeds

and the overall operation of the system, however, portions of the route would operate in good

LOS roadways

• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted in some areas – southern portion of

Sepulveda Boulevard, Van Nuys Boulevard around the Civic Center, and around the City of San

Fernando

• Geotechnical and biological impacts could occur along Parthenia Street. This alignment will

travel on Parthenia Street, over the Pacoima Wash which may need to be covered for median-


• Minimal property displacements would be expected

• Minimal historic and cultural impact is anticipated as the corridor is proposed to • Minimal historic and cultural impact is anticipated as the corridor is proposed to • Minimal historic and cultural impact is anticipated as the corridor is proposed to • Minimal historic and cultural impact is anticipated as the corridor is proposed to

run adjacent to the San Fernando Mission. Vibration during construct ion could be run adjacent to the San Fernando Mission. Vibration during construct ion could be run adjacent to the San Fernando Mission. Vibration during construct ion could be run adjacent to the San Fernando Mission. Vibration during construct ion could be


• Parklands would likely be impacted as Brand Park lies between Brand Boulevard • Parklands would likely be impacted as Brand Park lies between Brand Boulevard • Parklands would likely be impacted as Brand Park lies between Brand Boulevard • Parklands would likely be impacted as Brand Park lies between Brand Boulevard

and San Fernando Mission Boulevard; however, this also depends on the mode and and San Fernando Mission Boulevard; however, this also depends on the mode and and San Fernando Mission Boulevard; however, this also depends on the mode and and San Fernando Mission Boulevard; however, this also depends on the mode and

configurationconfigurationconfigurationconfiguration

• Connects the communities along Van Nuys Boulevard on the southern portion of the corridor

with highly transit dependent populations around Parthenia Street and along Sepulveda

Boulevard

• This route would be expected to increase economic development as this alignment connects

numerous commercial, civic and recreational land uses although not as high as other routes


Page 85



Sepulveda Blvd./Ventura Blvd. - Sepulveda Blvd. - Rinaldi St. -

Laurel Canyon Blvd. - Hubbard St. - Truman St. - Sylmar/San


NOTE:

The sharp turns in the northern portion of the alignment would

result in property acquisition and slow transit speeds for a

median-running BRT, streetcar, or LRT configuration.












Use Use Use Use


This alternative was recommended for elimination based on the fact that the region would not see substantial

improvements to mobility and connectivity as it would not include key areas along Van Nuys Boulevard which

has higher transit dependent populations and transit ridership.



• This route provides intermodal connectivity to regional transit services - Sepulveda MOL

Station and Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station


• The capital costs for this route would be lower than other routes given its length




power signaling, communication, vehicle and rail guideway maintenance.

• Journey t imes are expected to be moderate; however, the northern portion of • Journey t imes are expected to be moderate; however, the northern portion of • Journey t imes are expected to be moderate; however, the northern portion of • Journey t imes are expected to be moderate; however, the northern portion of

the route has several turns that impact travel timesthe route has several turns that impact travel timesthe route has several turns that impact travel timesthe route has several turns that impact travel times

• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be affected on the southern section of Sepulveda

Boulevard

• Minimal geotechnical, biological, hazardous material and visual impacts would be

expected but are dependent on mode and configuration


configuration

• This route offers less accessibility to the transit dependent population • This route offers less accessibility to the transit dependent population • This route offers less accessibility to the transit dependent population • This route offers less accessibility to the transit dependent population


• The route would probably not have as significant of an effect on economic • The route would probably not have as significant of an effect on economic • The route would probably not have as significant of an effect on economic • The route would probably not have as significant of an effect on economic

development compared to other routesdevelopment compared to other routesdevelopment compared to other routesdevelopment compared to other routes


Page 86




Van Nuys Blvd. - Parthenia St. - Sepulveda Blvd. -

Rinaldi St. - Laurel Canyon Blvd. - Hubbard St. - Truman

St. to Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station

NOTE:

The sharp turns in the northern portion of the

alignment would result in property acquisition and slow

transit speeds for a median-running BRT, streetcar, or

LRT configuration.












Use Use Use Use


This route was recommendation for elimination as mobility would not be improved with this route

alignment and due to the sharp turns particularly in the northern portion of the alignment.



• Route provides intermodal connectivity to regional transit services that includes

Sepulveda and Van Nuys MOL Stations, Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station,



• Given the total length of this route, the capital costs are expected to be higher than

shorter routes






• Journey times are expected to be slower than other alignments as the • Journey times are expected to be slower than other alignments as the • Journey times are expected to be slower than other alignments as the • Journey times are expected to be slower than other alignments as the

turns in the northern section would affect speedsturns in the northern section would affect speedsturns in the northern section would affect speedsturns in the northern section would affect speeds

• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be affected on the southern section of

the route - Sepulveda Boulevard and the Civic Center

• Geotechnical and biological impacts could occur along Parthenia Street. This

route will travel on Parthenia Street, over the Pacoima Wash which may need to be

covered for median-running configurations

• Visual and aesthetic impacts may occur with median-running configurations.

• Property displacements would be expected but are dependent on the mode and

configuration

• This route offers moderate accessibility to the transit dependent population

compared to other routes

• This route would have a moderate effect on economic development as • This route would have a moderate effect on economic development as • This route would have a moderate effect on economic development as • This route would have a moderate effect on economic development as

this alignment connects numerous commercial, civic and recreational this alignment connects numerous commercial, civic and recreational this alignment connects numerous commercial, civic and recreational this alignment connects numerous commercial, civic and recreational

land uses land uses land uses land uses


Page 87



Van Nuys Blvd./Ventura Blvd. - Van Nuys Blvd.

Glenoaks Blvd. - N. Hubbard Ave. - Sylmar/San Fernando

Metrolink Station

NOTE:

The existing Metrolink and Union Pacific tracks as well

as the potential California High Speed Rail would force

streetcar and LRT into a grade separation over or under

San Fernando Road.












Use Use Use Use


This route alignment was recommended for elimination as this route would not provide as direct a route,

as it would travel north and then south to connect to the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station. This

would create increase journey times and increased capital costs.


• Acceptable journey times are expected, but not as high as other routes. • Acceptable journey times are expected, but not as high as other routes. • Acceptable journey times are expected, but not as high as other routes. • Acceptable journey times are expected, but not as high as other routes.

The route is not as direct, as i t travels north and then south to the The route is not as direct, as i t travels north and then south to the The route is not as direct, as i t travels north and then south to the The route is not as direct, as i t travels north and then south to the

Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink StationSylmar/San Fernando Metrolink StationSylmar/San Fernando Metrolink StationSylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station

• Vehicular traffic travel time impacts are expected around the Civic Center,

Glenoaks Boulevard, and Hubbard Avenue

• This route provides intermodal connectivity to regional transit services - Van Nuys



• The capital costs of this route is expected to be higher than other routes due to its

length





maintenance.


• Visual and aesthetic impacts would be expected in the northern portion of the

route, along Glenoaks Boulevard as this is more residential in nature

• Minimal property displacements would be expected but are dependent on the mode

and configuration

• In general, this route serves transit dependent communities along Van Nuys

Boulevard. However, the northern portion serves less transit dependent populations

than other routes

• This route is expected to have a moderate effect on economic • This route is expected to have a moderate effect on economic • This route is expected to have a moderate effect on economic • This route is expected to have a moderate effect on economic

development although not as much as other alignmentsdevelopment although not as much as other alignmentsdevelopment although not as much as other alignmentsdevelopment although not as much as other alignments


Page 88

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----4 4 4 4 –––– Recommended Route Alignment Options (contRecommended Route Alignment Options (contRecommended Route Alignment Options (contRecommended Route Alignment Options (continued)inued)inued)inued)


Sepulveda Blvd./Ventura Blvd. - Sepulveda Blvd. - MOL - Van

Nuys Blvd. - Glenoaks Blvd. - Hubbard Ave. - Sylmar/San


NOTE:

The existing Metrolink and Union Pacific tracks as well as

the potential California High Speed Rail would force streetcar

and LRT into a grade separation over or under San Fernando

Road.












Use Use Use Use


This route was recommended for elimination based on similar findings from Route 10 - indirect route that

would travel north and then south to connect to the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station and higher capital

costs.


• Acceptable journey times are expected, but not as high as other routes. The • Acceptable journey times are expected, but not as high as other routes. The • Acceptable journey times are expected, but not as high as other routes. The • Acceptable journey times are expected, but not as high as other routes. The

route is not as direct, as i t travels north and then south to the Sylmar/San route is not as direct, as i t travels north and then south to the Sylmar/San route is not as direct, as i t travels north and then south to the Sylmar/San route is not as direct, as i t travels north and then south to the Sylmar/San

Fernando Metrolink StationFernando Metrolink StationFernando Metrolink StationFernando Metrolink Station

• Vehicular travel time impacts are expected on Sepulveda Boulevard, the Civic Center,

Glenoaks Boulevard, and Hubbard Avenue

• Route provides intermodal connectivity to regional transit services - Sepulveda and Van

Nuys MOL Stations, Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, and Sylmar/San Fernando

Metrolink Station


• The capital costs of this route is expected to be higher than other routes due to its

length



vehicles, stations, and guideway maintenance. The rail alternatives would include train

sets, power signaling, communication, vehicle and rail guideway maintenance.


• Visual and aesthetic impacts would be expected in the northern portion of the route,

along Glenoaks Boulevard as this is more residential in nature


configuration

• In general, this route serves transit dependent communities along Van Nuys Boulevard.

However, the northern portion serves less transit dependent populations than other

routes

• This route is expected to have a moderate effect on economic development • This route is expected to have a moderate effect on economic development • This route is expected to have a moderate effect on economic development • This route is expected to have a moderate effect on economic development

although not as much as other routesalthough not as much as other routesalthough not as much as other routesalthough not as much as other routes


Page 89

Additional evaluation criteria that were evaluated for each mode, configuration, and alignment also included community input and financial capability. The general evaluation for these criteria is as follows:


Seven community meetings were held prior to the evaluation of the community input performance measures that were applied for the Tier I screening (Stage I and II). Based on the general public input received during the meeting comment periods, the mode, configuration, and alignment options were assessed. The general comments included support and concerns for the project, and are as follows:

• Van Nuys Boulevard received high support as a project corridor, more so than Sepulveda Boulevard.

• Connecting to the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station and the future Sepulveda Pass Corridor project would be integral for improved mobility and regional connectivity.

• High public opposition for a project on Brand Boulevard due to the historic characteristic.

• Public support for the modes included high support for LRT, followed by BRT, and lastly minor support for streetcar.

• The community supported having bike lanes as part of the project.

• The community voiced strong support for improved mobility in the study area. Therefore, fewer conflicts with vehicles and bicycles would be of benefit.

Financial CapabilityFinancial CapabilityFinancial CapabilityFinancial Capability The financial capability considers the estimated capital costs in relation to the $170.1 million LRTP identified funds. The evaluation of the mode, configuration, and alignment options were dependent on these general principles:

• Mode – The cost of an LRT, followed by streetcar, would cost significantly more in terms of procuring trains, major infrastructure construction, and a new maintenance facility when compared to a BRT alternative.

• Configuration – Median-running configurations would be the most costly of the configurations due to the higher cost of the dedicated guideway that includes station platforms and pavement upgrades.

• Alignment – The costs are generally related to the length of the alignment. Therefore, the longer the route, the higher the cost.

4.54.54.54.5.2.2.2.2. . . . Stage I Screening ResultsStage I Screening ResultsStage I Screening ResultsStage I Screening Results

The Stage I screening of modes, configurations, and route alignments are described in this section.


Page 90

For the modal options, the top two modes which included BRT and LRT were recommended for further study as part of the Stage II analysis. Streetcar was eliminated due to the limitation on end-to-end travel time savings as this mode is not as effective in providing mobility for long corridors as compared to BRT and LRT options. Additionally, Metro does not currently operate streetcar as part of their transit system. Therefore, there would not be system compatibility. Of the 12 configurations, the top three were selected to move forward into Stage II of the Tier I screening. In general, configurations that had a reduced number of travel lanes or were single-lane median-running were eliminated from further analysis. Additionally, side-running configurations were removed from consideration due to the relatively high capital costs for limited mobility improvements. The configurations that were recommended included two median-running options and one peak-hour curbside option. The top five route alignments that were chosen for a Stage II evaluation included Routes 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7. These routes include alignments on Van Nuys Boulevard and several hybrid Van Nuys Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard/Brand Boulevard combinations. These routes show the most potential when considering the objective of the project in relation to connectivity and accessibility.

4.54.54.54.5.3.3.3.3. . . . Stage IIStage IIStage IIStage II

The Stage II Tier I screening analysis combined the two modes with three configurations and five routing alignments for a total of 15 alternatives. These alternatives were screened to determine which would be recommended for further review in the Tier II (final) screening. 4.5.3.14.5.3.14.5.3.14.5.3.1 AlternativesAlternativesAlternativesAlternatives Table 4-5 summarizes the 15 alternatives that were evaluated in Stage II of the Tier I screening. The primary determination whether or not to recommend an alternative are indicated by bold text.


Page 91

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----5 5 5 5 –––– Recommended Project Alternatives Recommended Project Alternatives Recommended Project Alternatives Recommended Project Alternatives

ROUTE - Van Nuys Blvd./Ventura Blvd. -

Van Nuys Blvd. - Van Nuys Blvd./Foothill

Blvd.

MODEMODEMODEMODE - - - - BRT

Travel & MobilityTravel & MobilityTravel & MobilityTravel & Mobility


• Improved journey time would be minimal as conflicts would continue • Improved journey time would be minimal as conflicts would continue • Improved journey time would be minimal as conflicts would continue • Improved journey time would be minimal as conflicts would continue

to occur because even though an exclusive lane would be provided, i t to occur because even though an exclusive lane would be provided, i t to occur because even though an exclusive lane would be provided, i t to occur because even though an exclusive lane would be provided, i t

would sti ll encounter conflicts with right-turning vehicles, bicyclists, would sti ll encounter conflicts with right-turning vehicles, bicyclists, would sti ll encounter conflicts with right-turning vehicles, bicyclists, would sti ll encounter conflicts with right-turning vehicles, bicyclists,

and illegally parked vehiclesand illegally parked vehiclesand illegally parked vehiclesand illegally parked vehicles


Civic Center

• There is high ridership in the Van Nuys corridor

Regional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi ty • This alternative provides moderate intermodal connectivity to other regional

transit services - Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, and future Sepulveda

Pass Transit Corridor project

• Does not connect to the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station• Does not connect to the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station• Does not connect to the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station• Does not connect to the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station

• Curbside bus service does not comply with long range mobili ty goals as • Curbside bus service does not comply with long range mobili ty goals as • Curbside bus service does not comply with long range mobili ty goals as • Curbside bus service does not comply with long range mobili ty goals as

i t would only improve peak-hour mobili ty along the routei t would only improve peak-hour mobili ty along the routei t would only improve peak-hour mobili ty along the routei t would only improve peak-hour mobili ty along the route

Cost-EffectivenessCost-EffectivenessCost-EffectivenessCost-Effectiveness • This alternative would require no construction, only signage and re-striping

• The O&M costs would be similar to existing Rapid Bus operations, but will

depend on vehicle headways



• In general, the environmental impacts associated with this alternative would be

minimal, if any




Boulevard

ELIMINATEDELIMINATEDELIMINATEDELIMINATEDThis alternative was recommended for elimination due to the peak-period bus only lane. The route would not

provide substantial improvements to mobility because of the limited operation of the transit lane.

Additionally, conflicts with right-turning vehicles and the potential for illegally parked vehicles could affect

service efficiency. It also does not connect to the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station

ALTERNATIVE 1CALTERNATIVE 1CALTERNATIVE 1CALTERNATIVE 1C


Page 92

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----5 5 5 5 –––– Recommended Project Alternatives (continued)Recommended Project Alternatives (continued)Recommended Project Alternatives (continued)Recommended Project Alternatives (continued)

ROUTEROUTEROUTEROUTE - - - - Van Nuys Blvd./Ventura Blvd. -


Blvd.


Travel & Mobili tyTravel & Mobili tyTravel & Mobili tyTravel & Mobili ty


• End-to-end transit travel time savings are expected to improve with a linear route and



Center


Regional ConnectivityRegional ConnectivityRegional ConnectivityRegional Connectivity • This alternative provides moderate intermodal connectivity to other regional transit

services - Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, and future Sepulveda Pass Transit

Corridor project


• A BRT option would comply with the long range mobility goals for the region by

providing connectivity and improving travel for the region

Cost-EffectivenessCost-EffectivenessCost-EffectivenessCost-Effectiveness • The capital costs for BRT would be high as it would require major roadway

reconstruction for dedicated guideway segments

• The O&M costs for a BRT median-running guideway would be similar to existing Rapid

Bus operations, but will depend on vehicle headways

• Would require an expansion of existing bus maintenance facility



• Visual and aesthetic construction impacts would be expected with this alternative

• Community disruption and potential property displacement may occur



• This route is expected to have a significant effect on economic development as it

connects more commercial, civic and recreational land uses than other alignments

• This route lies along various transit dependent communities along Van Nuys Boulevard

• South of the MOL, there is a higher density of zero vehicle households, transit

dependent populations, and poverty

ELIMINATEDELIMINATEDELIMINATEDELIMINATEDThis alternative was recommended for elimination due to limited intermodal system connectivity, especially at the

northern terminus location.

ALTERNATIVE 1BALTERNATIVE 1BALTERNATIVE 1BALTERNATIVE 1B


Page 93


ROUTE - Van Nuys Blvd./Ventura Blvd. -


Blvd.

MODEMODEMODEMODE - - - - LRT



• End-to-end transit travel time savings are expected to improve with a linear route and


• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van Nuys Civic Center




• This alternative provides moderate intermodal connectivity to other regional transit


Corridor project


• An LRT option would comply with the long range mobility goals for the region by

providing connectivity and improving travel for the region

Cost-EffectivenessCost-EffectivenessCost-EffectivenessCost-Effectiveness • The capital costs for LRT would be expensive as it would require major roadway

reconstruction

• The O&M costs for an LRT median-running guideway would be high and is dependent on

the operating headways and number of cars per train

• Grade-separation would be necessary at San Fernando Road because the LRT • Grade-separation would be necessary at San Fernando Road because the LRT • Grade-separation would be necessary at San Fernando Road because the LRT • Grade-separation would be necessary at San Fernando Road because the LRT

cannot cross the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line/Union Paci fic tracks at grade cannot cross the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line/Union Paci fic tracks at grade cannot cross the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line/Union Paci fic tracks at grade cannot cross the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line/Union Paci fic tracks at grade

• Would require land acquisi tion and construction of a maintenance facility• Would require land acquisi tion and construction of a maintenance facility• Would require land acquisi tion and construction of a maintenance facility• Would require land acquisi tion and construction of a maintenance facility



• The visual and aesthetic impacts would be high due to the catenary system

• Grade-separation would be necessary at San Fernando Road because the LRT • Grade-separation would be necessary at San Fernando Road because the LRT • Grade-separation would be necessary at San Fernando Road because the LRT • Grade-separation would be necessary at San Fernando Road because the LRT

cannot cross the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line/Union Paci fic tracks at grade cannot cross the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line/Union Paci fic tracks at grade cannot cross the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line/Union Paci fic tracks at grade cannot cross the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line/Union Paci fic tracks at grade


Use ConsiderationsUse ConsiderationsUse ConsiderationsUse Considerations

• This route is expected to have a significant effect on economic development as it connects

more commercial, civic and recreational land uses than other alignments


• South of the MOL, there is a higher density of zero vehicle households, transit dependent

populations, and poverty

ELIMINATEDELIMINATEDELIMINATEDELIMINATEDThis alternative was recommended for elimination due to the LRT’s environmental impacts which outweigh the

ridership and mobility benefits of the alternative. Ridership, mobility, and connectivity would improve in the east

San Fernando Valley with a median-running LRT alternative, but there would be significant impacts including

geotechnical, hazardous materials, biological, construction, visual and aesthetic. This is mainly attributed to the

need to provide a grade-separation at San Fernando Road due to the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line/Union Pacific

tracks. Additionally, this mode is capital intensive and would increase in costs with the need to grade-separate.

ALTERNATIVE 1LALTERNATIVE 1LALTERNATIVE 1LALTERNATIVE 1L


Page 94

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----5 5 5 5 –––– Recommended Project Recommended Project Recommended Project Recommended Project Alternatives (continued)Alternatives (continued)Alternatives (continued)Alternatives (continued)

ROUTEROUTEROUTEROUTE - - - - Sepulveda Blvd./Ventura Blvd. -

Ventura Blvd. - Van Nuys Blvd. - San

Fernando Rd. - Truman St. - Sylmar/San










Civic Center


Regional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi ty • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivity to regional transit services -

Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink

Station, and future Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor project









minimal, if any




Boulevard


see substantial improvements to mobility because of the limited operation of the lane, conflicts with right-

turning vehicles, and the potential for illegally parked vehicles impeding efficient service.



Page 95







Travel & Mobi lityTravel & Mobi lityTravel & Mobi lityTravel & Mobi lity


• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van Nuys • Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van Nuys • Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van Nuys • Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van Nuys

Civic Center. Compared to similar routes, i t would encounter a smaller number Civic Center. Compared to similar routes, i t would encounter a smaller number Civic Center. Compared to similar routes, i t would encounter a smaller number Civic Center. Compared to similar routes, i t would encounter a smaller number

of congested segmentsof congested segmentsof congested segmentsof congested segments

• Journey t imes are expected to improve moderately with this median-running • Journey t imes are expected to improve moderately with this median-running • Journey t imes are expected to improve moderately with this median-running • Journey t imes are expected to improve moderately with this median-running

BRT alignment as it operates in a dedicated guideway and mixed-flow trafficBRT alignment as it operates in a dedicated guideway and mixed-flow trafficBRT alignment as it operates in a dedicated guideway and mixed-flow trafficBRT alignment as it operates in a dedicated guideway and mixed-flow traffic

• There i s high ridership in the Van Nuys corridor• There i s high ridership in the Van Nuys corridor• There i s high ridership in the Van Nuys corridor• There i s high ridership in the Van Nuys corridor

Regional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi ty • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivi ty to regional transit • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivi ty to regional transit • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivi ty to regional transit • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivi ty to regional transit

services - Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando services - Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando services - Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando services - Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando

Metrolink Station, and future Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor projectMetrolink Station, and future Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor projectMetrolink Station, and future Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor projectMetrolink Station, and future Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor project

• A BRT option would comply with the long range mobility goals for the region by providing

connectivity and improving travel for the region

Cost-EffectivenessCost-EffectivenessCost-EffectivenessCost-Effectiveness • The capital costs for BRT would be expensive as it would require major roadway











• This alternative is expected to have a significant effect on economic • This alternative is expected to have a significant effect on economic • This alternative is expected to have a significant effect on economic • This alternative is expected to have a significant effect on economic

development as it connects more commercial, civic and recreational land uses development as it connects more commercial, civic and recreational land uses development as it connects more commercial, civic and recreational land uses development as it connects more commercial, civic and recreational land uses

than other alignmentsthan other alignmentsthan other alignmentsthan other alignments

• This route lies along various transit dependent communities along Van Nuys • This route lies along various transit dependent communities along Van Nuys • This route lies along various transit dependent communities along Van Nuys • This route lies along various transit dependent communities along Van Nuys

BoulevardBoulevardBoulevardBoulevard

• South of the MOL, there is a higher density of zero vehicle households, transi t • South of the MOL, there is a higher density of zero vehicle households, transi t • South of the MOL, there is a higher density of zero vehicle households, transi t • South of the MOL, there is a higher density of zero vehicle households, transi t

dependent populations, and povertydependent populations, and povertydependent populations, and povertydependent populations, and poverty

RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYRECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYRECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYRECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYThis alternative was recommended for further study because it would improve end-to-end travel time in the east San

Fernando Valley and would connect and traverse several connecting transit services such as Sepulveda and Van Nuys

MOL Stations, and Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station, and future

Sepulveda Pass Corridor project. The mode is compatible with the existing Metro bus fleet and would require less

capital cost investment compared to a LRT, and presents minimal environmental impacts while providing improved

mobility and connectivity to the study area.



Page 96









• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van Nuys Civic • Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van Nuys Civic • Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van Nuys Civic • Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van Nuys Civic

Center; however, compared to similar routes, i t would encounter a smaller number Center; however, compared to similar routes, i t would encounter a smaller number Center; however, compared to similar routes, i t would encounter a smaller number Center; however, compared to similar routes, i t would encounter a smaller number

of congested segmentsof congested segmentsof congested segmentsof congested segments

• Journey times are expected to improve with this median-running LRT alignment• Journey times are expected to improve with this median-running LRT alignment• Journey times are expected to improve with this median-running LRT alignment• Journey times are expected to improve with this median-running LRT alignment

• There is high ridership in the Van Nuys corridor• There is high ridership in the Van Nuys corridor• There is high ridership in the Van Nuys corridor• There is high ridership in the Van Nuys corridor

Regional ConnectivityRegional ConnectivityRegional ConnectivityRegional Connectivity • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivity to regional transit services - • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivity to regional transit services - • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivity to regional transit services - • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivity to regional transit services -

Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink

Station, and future Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor projectStation, and future Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor projectStation, and future Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor projectStation, and future Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor project

• Improved transit mobility, as set forth as a goal, should be enhanced with the median-running


Cost-EffectivenessCost-EffectivenessCost-EffectivenessCost-Effectiveness • The capital costs for LRT would be expensive as it would require major roadway reconstruction

and land acquisition

• The O&M costs for an LRT median-running guideway would be high and is dependent on the

operating headways and number of cars per train

• Would require land acquisition and construction of a maintenance facility




• Property displacements would be expected as ROW acquisition will be necessary along San

Fernando Road

• Adequate ROW south of the MOL



• This alternative is expected to have a significant effect on economic development • This alternative is expected to have a significant effect on economic development • This alternative is expected to have a significant effect on economic development • This alternative is expected to have a significant effect on economic development

as i t connects more commercial, civic and recreational land uses than other as i t connects more commercial, civic and recreational land uses than other as i t connects more commercial, civic and recreational land uses than other as i t connects more commercial, civic and recreational land uses than other

alignmentsalignmentsalignmentsalignments

• This route lies along various transit dependent communities along Van Nuys • This route lies along various transit dependent communities along Van Nuys • This route lies along various transit dependent communities along Van Nuys • This route lies along various transit dependent communities along Van Nuys

BoulevardBoulevardBoulevardBoulevard

• South of the MOL, there is a higher density of zero vehicle households, transit • South of the MOL, there is a higher density of zero vehicle households, transit • South of the MOL, there is a higher density of zero vehicle households, transit • South of the MOL, there is a higher density of zero vehicle households, transit

dependent populations, and povertydependent populations, and povertydependent populations, and povertydependent populations, and poverty

RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYRECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYRECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYRECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYThis alternative was recommended for further study since the ridership, mobility, and connectivity would improve in the

east San Fernando Valley with a median-running LRT alternative. It would improve end-to-end travel time in the east San

Fernando Valley and would connect and traverse several connecting transit services like Sepulveda and Van Nuys MOL

Stations, and Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station, and future Sepulveda Pass

Corridor project. Extensive right-of-way acquisition would be necessary along San Fernando Road.



Page 97



Sepulveda Blvd. - MOL - Van Nuys Blvd. -

Van Nuys Blvd./Foothill Blvd.








• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be affected around the Van Nuys Civic

Center and the southern portion of Sepulveda corridor


Regional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi ty • This alternative provides moderate intermodal connectivity to other regional

transit services - Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, and future Sepulveda


• Does not connect to the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station









minimal, if any




Boulevard

ELIMINATEDELIMINATEDELIMINATEDELIMINATEDThis alternative was recommended for elimination due to the peak-period bus only lane for which the route

would not see substantial improvements to mobility because of the limited operation of the lane and because

conflicts with right-turning vehicles and the potential for illegally parked vehicles impeding on efficient

service.



Page 98

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----5 5 5 5 –––– Recommended Project Alternatives (coRecommended Project Alternatives (coRecommended Project Alternatives (coRecommended Project Alternatives (continued)ntinued)ntinued)ntinued)







• End-to-end transit travel t ime savings are expected to improve with a general • End-to-end transit travel t ime savings are expected to improve with a general • End-to-end transit travel t ime savings are expected to improve with a general • End-to-end transit travel t ime savings are expected to improve with a general

linear route and median-running alignment due to reduced vehicle conflicts as linear route and median-running alignment due to reduced vehicle conflicts as linear route and median-running alignment due to reduced vehicle conflicts as linear route and median-running alignment due to reduced vehicle conflicts as

the entire length of the route would be located in a dedicated guidewaythe entire length of the route would be located in a dedicated guidewaythe entire length of the route would be located in a dedicated guidewaythe entire length of the route would be located in a dedicated guideway

• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be affected around the Van Nuys Civic Center

and the southern portion of Sepulveda corridor


Regional ConnectivityRegional ConnectivityRegional ConnectivityRegional Connectivity • This alternative provides moderate intermodal connectivity to other regional transit


Corridor project

• Does not connect to the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station

• A BRT option would comply with the long range mobility goals for the region by providing

connectivity and improving travel for the region













development as i t connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses; development as i t connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses; development as i t connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses; development as i t connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses;

however, not as much alternatives that continue on Van Nuys Boulevardhowever, not as much alternatives that continue on Van Nuys Boulevardhowever, not as much alternatives that continue on Van Nuys Boulevardhowever, not as much alternatives that continue on Van Nuys Boulevard


• South of the MOL, this segment would not serve as dense a transi t dependent • South of the MOL, this segment would not serve as dense a transi t dependent • South of the MOL, this segment would not serve as dense a transi t dependent • South of the MOL, this segment would not serve as dense a transi t dependent

population alternatives that continue on Van Nuys Boulevardpopulation alternatives that continue on Van Nuys Boulevardpopulation alternatives that continue on Van Nuys Boulevardpopulation alternatives that continue on Van Nuys Boulevard

RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYRECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYRECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYRECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYThis alternative was recommended for further analysis because it would improve end-to-end travel time in the east San

Fernando Valley. The mode is compatible with the existing Metro bus fleet and would require less capital cost

investment compared to a LRT and presents minimal environmental impacts while providing improved mobility and

connectivity to the study area. Additionally, it would provide bikes lanes which are designated as bike routes within the

City of LA Bike Plan.



Page 99







Mobili tyMobili tyMobili tyMobili ty



• End-to-end transit travel time savings are expected to improve with a general linear route and median-

running alignment due to reduced vehicle conflicts

• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be affected around the Van Nuys Civic Center and • Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be affected around the Van Nuys Civic Center and • Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be affected around the Van Nuys Civic Center and • Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be affected around the Van Nuys Civic Center and

the southern portion of Sepulveda corridorthe southern portion of Sepulveda corridorthe southern portion of Sepulveda corridorthe southern portion of Sepulveda corridor


• There is less ridership along the Sepulveda corridor south of the MOL in comparison to the • There is less ridership along the Sepulveda corridor south of the MOL in comparison to the • There is less ridership along the Sepulveda corridor south of the MOL in comparison to the • There is less ridership along the Sepulveda corridor south of the MOL in comparison to the

same portion on the Van Nuys corridorsame portion on the Van Nuys corridorsame portion on the Van Nuys corridorsame portion on the Van Nuys corridor

• Proximity to I-405 and US-101 interchange creates more congestion along the southern • Proximity to I-405 and US-101 interchange creates more congestion along the southern • Proximity to I-405 and US-101 interchange creates more congestion along the southern • Proximity to I-405 and US-101 interchange creates more congestion along the southern

portion of Sepulveda Boulevard so much so that the intersection of Sepulveda portion of Sepulveda Boulevard so much so that the intersection of Sepulveda portion of Sepulveda Boulevard so much so that the intersection of Sepulveda portion of Sepulveda Boulevard so much so that the intersection of Sepulveda

Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard is one of the most congested intersections in the ValleyBoulevard/Ventura Boulevard is one of the most congested intersections in the ValleyBoulevard/Ventura Boulevard is one of the most congested intersections in the ValleyBoulevard/Ventura Boulevard is one of the most congested intersections in the Valley



• This alternative provides moderate intermodal connectivity to other regional transit services - Van Nuys

Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, and future Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor project


• An LRT option would comply with the long range mobility goals for the region by providing connectivity

and improving travel for the region



• The capital costs for LRT would be expensive as it would require major roadway reconstruction and land

acquisition

• The O&M costs for an LRT median-running guideway would be high and is dependent on the operating

headways and number of cars per train

• Grade-separation would be necessary at San Fernando Road because the LRT cannot cross the • Grade-separation would be necessary at San Fernando Road because the LRT cannot cross the • Grade-separation would be necessary at San Fernando Road because the LRT cannot cross the • Grade-separation would be necessary at San Fernando Road because the LRT cannot cross the

Metrolink Antelope Valley Line/Union Pacific tracks at grade Metrolink Antelope Valley Line/Union Pacific tracks at grade Metrolink Antelope Valley Line/Union Pacific tracks at grade Metrolink Antelope Valley Line/Union Pacific tracks at grade

• Would require land acquisition and construction of a maintenance faci li ty• Would require land acquisition and construction of a maintenance faci li ty• Would require land acquisition and construction of a maintenance faci li ty• Would require land acquisition and construction of a maintenance faci li ty





• Grade-separation would be necessary at San Fernando Road because the LRT cannot cross the • Grade-separation would be necessary at San Fernando Road because the LRT cannot cross the • Grade-separation would be necessary at San Fernando Road because the LRT cannot cross the • Grade-separation would be necessary at San Fernando Road because the LRT cannot cross the

Metrolink Antelope Valley Line/Union Pacific tracks at grade Metrolink Antelope Valley Line/Union Pacific tracks at grade Metrolink Antelope Valley Line/Union Pacific tracks at grade Metrolink Antelope Valley Line/Union Pacific tracks at grade

• Constrained ROW south of the MOL• Constrained ROW south of the MOL• Constrained ROW south of the MOL• Constrained ROW south of the MOLEconomic & Economic & Economic & Economic &



• This alternative is expected to have a s ignificant effect on economic development as i t • This alternative is expected to have a s ignificant effect on economic development as i t • This alternative is expected to have a s ignificant effect on economic development as i t • This alternative is expected to have a s ignificant effect on economic development as i t

connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses; however, not as much alternatives that connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses; however, not as much alternatives that connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses; however, not as much alternatives that connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses; however, not as much alternatives that

continue on Van Nuys Boulevardcontinue on Van Nuys Boulevardcontinue on Van Nuys Boulevardcontinue on Van Nuys Boulevard


• South of the MOL, this segment would not serve as dense a transit dependent population • South of the MOL, this segment would not serve as dense a transit dependent population • South of the MOL, this segment would not serve as dense a transit dependent population • South of the MOL, this segment would not serve as dense a transit dependent population

alternatives that continue on Van Nuys Boulevardalternatives that continue on Van Nuys Boulevardalternatives that continue on Van Nuys Boulevardalternatives that continue on Van Nuys Boulevard

ELIMINATEDELIMINATEDELIMINATEDELIMINATEDThis alternative was recommended for elimination due to the LRT’s environmental impacts which outweigh the ridership and

mobility benefits of the alternative. Ridership, mobility, and connectivity would improve in the east San Fernando Valley with a

median-running LRT alternative, however, there would be significant impacts including geotechnical, hazardous materials,

biological, visual and aesthetic. This is mainly attributed to the need to provide a grade-separation at San Fernando Road due to

the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line/Union Pacific tracks. Additionally, this mode is capital intensive and would increase in costs

with the need to grade separate.



Page 100




San Fernando Rd. - Truman St. -





• Improved journey time would be minimal as conflicts would continue to • Improved journey time would be minimal as conflicts would continue to • Improved journey time would be minimal as conflicts would continue to • Improved journey time would be minimal as conflicts would continue to

occur because even though an exclusive lane would be provided, i t would sti ll occur because even though an exclusive lane would be provided, i t would sti ll occur because even though an exclusive lane would be provided, i t would sti ll occur because even though an exclusive lane would be provided, i t would sti ll

encounter conflicts with right-turning vehicles, bicyclists, and i llegally parked encounter conflicts with right-turning vehicles, bicyclists, and i llegally parked encounter conflicts with right-turning vehicles, bicyclists, and i llegally parked encounter conflicts with right-turning vehicles, bicyclists, and i llegally parked

vehiclesvehiclesvehiclesvehicles


Center and the southern portion of Sepulveda corridor


Regional ConnectivityRegional ConnectivityRegional ConnectivityRegional Connectivity • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivity to regional transit services - Van

Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station, and

future Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor project

• Curbside bus service does not comply with long range mobili ty goals as i t • Curbside bus service does not comply with long range mobili ty goals as i t • Curbside bus service does not comply with long range mobili ty goals as i t • Curbside bus service does not comply with long range mobili ty goals as i t

would only improve peak-hour mobility along the routewould only improve peak-hour mobility along the routewould only improve peak-hour mobility along the routewould only improve peak-hour mobility along the route


• The O&M costs would be similar to existing Rapid Bus operations, but will depend on

vehicle headways




minimal, if any




ELIMINATEDELIMINATEDELIMINATEDELIMINATEDThis alternative was recommended for elimination due to the peak-period bus only lane for which the route would

not see substantial improvements to mobility because of the limited operation of the lane and because conflicts with

right-turning vehicles and the potential for illegally parked vehicles impeding on efficient service.



Page 101









• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van Nuys Civic Center and

the southern portion of Sepulveda corridor

• Journey times are expected to improve with this median-running BRT alignment• Journey times are expected to improve with this median-running BRT alignment• Journey times are expected to improve with this median-running BRT alignment• Journey times are expected to improve with this median-running BRT alignment


• Proximity to the I-405 and US-101 interchange creates more congestion along the • Proximity to the I-405 and US-101 interchange creates more congestion along the • Proximity to the I-405 and US-101 interchange creates more congestion along the • Proximity to the I-405 and US-101 interchange creates more congestion along the

southern portion of Sepulveda Boulevard, so much so that Sepulveda southern portion of Sepulveda Boulevard, so much so that Sepulveda southern portion of Sepulveda Boulevard, so much so that Sepulveda southern portion of Sepulveda Boulevard, so much so that Sepulveda

Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard is considered one of the most congested intersections Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard is considered one of the most congested intersections Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard is considered one of the most congested intersections Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard is considered one of the most congested intersections

in the Valley; therefore, the fact that i t would operate in a dedicated guideway assists in the Valley; therefore, the fact that i t would operate in a dedicated guideway assists in the Valley; therefore, the fact that i t would operate in a dedicated guideway assists in the Valley; therefore, the fact that i t would operate in a dedicated guideway assists

in improved transit mobili tyin improved transit mobili tyin improved transit mobili tyin improved transit mobili tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi ty • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivity to regional transit services - Van Nuys

Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station, and future Sepulveda




Cost-EffectivenessCost-EffectivenessCost-EffectivenessCost-Effectiveness • The capital costs for BRT would be expensive as it would require major roadway reconstruction

for dedicated guideway segments

• The O&M costs for a BRT median-running guideway would be similar to existing Rapid Bus

operations, but will depend on vehicle headways








• This alternative is expected to have a significant effect on economic development as • This alternative is expected to have a significant effect on economic development as • This alternative is expected to have a significant effect on economic development as • This alternative is expected to have a significant effect on economic development as

i t connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses; however, not as much i t connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses; however, not as much i t connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses; however, not as much i t connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses; however, not as much

alternatives that continue on Van Nuys Boulevardalternatives that continue on Van Nuys Boulevardalternatives that continue on Van Nuys Boulevardalternatives that continue on Van Nuys Boulevard


• South of the MOL, this segment would not serve as dense a transit dependent • South of the MOL, this segment would not serve as dense a transit dependent • South of the MOL, this segment would not serve as dense a transit dependent • South of the MOL, this segment would not serve as dense a transit dependent


RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYRECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYRECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYRECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYThis alternative was recommended for further analysis because it would improve end-to-end travel time in the east San

Fernando Valley and would connect and traverse through several connecting transit services like the Sepulveda and Van Nuys

MOL Stations, Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station, and with the future Sepulveda

Pass Corridor project. The mode is compatible with the existing Metro bus fleet and would require less capital cost

investment compared to a LRT and presents minimal environmental impacts while providing improved mobility and

connectivity to the study area. Additionally, it would provide bikes lanes which are designated as bike routes within the City

of LA Bike Plan.



Page 102







Travel & Mobi lityTravel & Mobi lityTravel & Mobi lityTravel & Mobi lity


• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van Nuys Civic Center and the

southern portion of Sepulveda corridor

• Journey times are expected to improve with this median-running LRT alignment; • Journey times are expected to improve with this median-running LRT alignment; • Journey times are expected to improve with this median-running LRT alignment; • Journey times are expected to improve with this median-running LRT alignment;

however, are likely to be slower than alternatives that continue down Van Nuys however, are likely to be slower than alternatives that continue down Van Nuys however, are likely to be slower than alternatives that continue down Van Nuys however, are likely to be slower than alternatives that continue down Van Nuys

Boulevard due to congestion in the southern portion of the routeBoulevard due to congestion in the southern portion of the routeBoulevard due to congestion in the southern portion of the routeBoulevard due to congestion in the southern portion of the route


• There is less ridership along the Sepulveda corridor south of the MOL in comparison • There is less ridership along the Sepulveda corridor south of the MOL in comparison • There is less ridership along the Sepulveda corridor south of the MOL in comparison • There is less ridership along the Sepulveda corridor south of the MOL in comparison

to the same portion on the Van Nuys corridorto the same portion on the Van Nuys corridorto the same portion on the Van Nuys corridorto the same portion on the Van Nuys corridor

• Proximity to the I-405 and US-101 interchange creates more congestion along the • Proximity to the I-405 and US-101 interchange creates more congestion along the • Proximity to the I-405 and US-101 interchange creates more congestion along the • Proximity to the I-405 and US-101 interchange creates more congestion along the

southern portion of Sepulveda Boulevard , so much so that Sepulveda southern portion of Sepulveda Boulevard , so much so that Sepulveda southern portion of Sepulveda Boulevard , so much so that Sepulveda southern portion of Sepulveda Boulevard , so much so that Sepulveda

Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard is considered one of the most congested intersections in Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard is considered one of the most congested intersections in Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard is considered one of the most congested intersections in Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard is considered one of the most congested intersections in

the Valley the Valley the Valley the Valley

Regional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi ty • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivity to regional transit services - Van Nuys

Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station, and future Sepulveda




Cost-EffectivenessCost-EffectivenessCost-EffectivenessCost-Effectiveness • The capital costs for LRT would be expensive as it would require major roadway reconstruction and

land acquisition

• The O&M costs for an LRT median-running guideway would be high and is dependent on the

operating headways and number of cars per train

• Would require land acquisit ion and construction of a maintenance facili ty• Would require land acquisit ion and construction of a maintenance facili ty• Would require land acquisit ion and construction of a maintenance facili ty• Would require land acquisit ion and construction of a maintenance facili ty




• Property displacements would be expected as ROW acquisition will be necessary along San

Fernando Road

• Constrained ROW south of the MOL• Constrained ROW south of the MOL• Constrained ROW south of the MOL• Constrained ROW south of the MOL



• This alternative is expected to have a signi ficant effect on economic development as it • This alternative is expected to have a signi ficant effect on economic development as it • This alternative is expected to have a signi ficant effect on economic development as it • This alternative is expected to have a signi ficant effect on economic development as it

connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses, but not as much as alternatives connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses, but not as much as alternatives connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses, but not as much as alternatives connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses, but not as much as alternatives

that continue on Van Nuys Boulevardthat continue on Van Nuys Boulevardthat continue on Van Nuys Boulevardthat continue on Van Nuys Boulevard


• South of the MOL, this segment would not serve as dense a transit dependent • South of the MOL, this segment would not serve as dense a transit dependent • South of the MOL, this segment would not serve as dense a transit dependent • South of the MOL, this segment would not serve as dense a transit dependent


ELIMINATEDELIMINATEDELIMINATEDELIMINATEDThis alternative was recommended for elimination as it would not serve as large of a transit dependent population compared to

the other LRT alternatives. Additionally, journey times may be compromised due to congestion along portions of Van Nuys

Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard. The capital costs would be higher due to the ROW acquisition along San Fernando

Boulevard and potential constraints along Sepulveda Boulevard.



Page 103

TablTablTablTable 4e 4e 4e 4----5 5 5 5 –––– Recommended Project Alternatives (continued)Recommended Project Alternatives (continued)Recommended Project Alternatives (continued)Recommended Project Alternatives (continued)



Parthenia St. - Sepulveda Blvd. - Brand Blvd.

- Truman St. - Sylmar/San Fernando

Metrolink Station









Civic Center and the southern portion of Sepulveda corridor

Regional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi ty • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivity to regional transit services -

Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink

Station, and future Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor project









minimal, if any



• Traverses transit dependent communities along Van Nuys Boulevard, Parthenia

Street, and Sepulveda Boulevard


provide substantial improvements to mobility because of the limited operation of the lane, conflicts with right-

turning vehicles, and the potential for illegally parked vehicles impeding on efficient service.



Page 104






Metrolink Station




• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van Nuys Civic Center

and the southern portion of Sepulveda corridor

• Proximity to the I-405 and US-101 interchange creates more congestion along • Proximity to the I-405 and US-101 interchange creates more congestion along • Proximity to the I-405 and US-101 interchange creates more congestion along • Proximity to the I-405 and US-101 interchange creates more congestion along

the southern portion of Sepulveda Boulevard. Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura the southern portion of Sepulveda Boulevard. Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura the southern portion of Sepulveda Boulevard. Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura the southern portion of Sepulveda Boulevard. Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura

Boulevard is considered one of the most congested intersections in the Valley. Boulevard is considered one of the most congested intersections in the Valley. Boulevard is considered one of the most congested intersections in the Valley. Boulevard is considered one of the most congested intersections in the Valley.

Operations in a dedicated guideway would improve transit mobi lity.Operations in a dedicated guideway would improve transit mobi lity.Operations in a dedicated guideway would improve transit mobi lity.Operations in a dedicated guideway would improve transit mobi lity.

Regional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi tyRegional Connectivi ty • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivi ty to regional transi t • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivi ty to regional transi t • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivi ty to regional transi t • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivi ty to regional transi t

services - Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando services - Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando services - Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando services - Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando

Metrolink Station, and future Sepulveda Pass Transi t Corridor projectMetrolink Station, and future Sepulveda Pass Transi t Corridor projectMetrolink Station, and future Sepulveda Pass Transi t Corridor projectMetrolink Station, and future Sepulveda Pass Transi t Corridor project

• Improved transit mobility, as set forth as a goal, should be enhanced with the median-














development as i t connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses along development as i t connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses along development as i t connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses along development as i t connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses along

Van Nuys Boulevard and Sepulveda BoulevardVan Nuys Boulevard and Sepulveda BoulevardVan Nuys Boulevard and Sepulveda BoulevardVan Nuys Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard

• Traverses transit dependent communities along Van Nuys Boulevard, • Traverses transit dependent communities along Van Nuys Boulevard, • Traverses transit dependent communities along Van Nuys Boulevard, • Traverses transit dependent communities along Van Nuys Boulevard,

Parthenia Street, and Sepulveda BoulevardParthenia Street, and Sepulveda BoulevardParthenia Street, and Sepulveda BoulevardParthenia Street, and Sepulveda Boulevard

• South of the MOL, this segment would not serve as dense a transit dependent population

alternatives that continue on Van Nuys Boulevard

RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYRECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYRECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYRECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYThis alternative was recommended for further study because it would improve end-to-end travel time in the east San

Fernando Valley and would connect and traverse several connecting transit services like the Sepulveda and Van Nuys

MOL Stations, Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station, and the future Sepulveda

Pass Corridor project. The mode is compatible with the existing Metro bus fleet and would require less capital cost

investment compared to LRT. This alternative presents minimal environmental impacts while providing improved

mobility and connectivity to the study area and support of the LA Bike Plan is more in line with the regional mobility

goals.



Page 105






Metrolink Station



Mobi li tyMobi li tyMobi li tyMobi li ty



• Vehicular traffic travel time is expected to be impacted around the Van Nuys Civic Center and the

southern portion of Sepulveda corridor

• Journey times are expected to improve with this median-running LRT alignment, even • Journey times are expected to improve with this median-running LRT alignment, even • Journey times are expected to improve with this median-running LRT alignment, even • Journey times are expected to improve with this median-running LRT alignment, even

with congestion in the southern portion, since the northern portion is less congested with congestion in the southern portion, since the northern portion is less congested with congestion in the southern portion, since the northern portion is less congested with congestion in the southern portion, since the northern portion is less congested

compared to the similar segments on Van Nuys Boulevardcompared to the similar segments on Van Nuys Boulevardcompared to the similar segments on Van Nuys Boulevardcompared to the similar segments on Van Nuys Boulevard

• There is high ridership in the central portion of Van Nuys Boulevard (Panorama City and Van Nuys)

• • • • There is lower ridership along the Sepulveda corridor south of the MOL in comparison to the same

portion on the Van Nuys corridor

• Proximity to the I-405 and US-101 interchange creates more congestion along the southern portion of

Sepulveda Boulevard. Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard is considered one of the most congested

intersections in the Valley.



• This alternative provides high intermodal connectivi ty to regional transit services - Van • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivi ty to regional transit services - Van • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivi ty to regional transit services - Van • This alternative provides high intermodal connectivi ty to regional transit services - Van

Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station, and future Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station, and future Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station, and future Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak Station, MOL, Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station, and future

Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor projectSepulveda Pass Transit Corridor projectSepulveda Pass Transit Corridor projectSepulveda Pass Transit Corridor project





• The capital costs for LRT would be expensive as it would require major roadway reconstruction and land

acquisition

• The O&M costs for an LRT median-running guideway would be high and is dependent on the operating

headways and number of cars per train

• Would require land acquisition and construction of a maintenance facility




• The visual and aesthetic impacts would be high due to the catenary system and along portions of

Sepulveda Boulevard and Brand Boulevard

• Constrained ROW south of the MOL




• This alternative is expected to have a significant effect on economic development as it • This alternative is expected to have a significant effect on economic development as it • This alternative is expected to have a significant effect on economic development as it • This alternative is expected to have a significant effect on economic development as it

connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses along Van Nuys Boulevard and connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses along Van Nuys Boulevard and connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses along Van Nuys Boulevard and connects commercial, civic and recreational land uses along Van Nuys Boulevard and

Sepulveda BoulevardSepulveda BoulevardSepulveda BoulevardSepulveda Boulevard

• Traverses transi t dependent communities along Van Nuys Boulevard, Parthenia Street, • Traverses transi t dependent communities along Van Nuys Boulevard, Parthenia Street, • Traverses transi t dependent communities along Van Nuys Boulevard, Parthenia Street, • Traverses transi t dependent communities along Van Nuys Boulevard, Parthenia Street,

and Sepulveda Boulevardand Sepulveda Boulevardand Sepulveda Boulevardand Sepulveda Boulevard

• South of the MOL, this segment would not serve as dense a transit dependent population as

alternatives that continue on Van Nuys Boulevard

RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYRECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYRECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYRECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDYThis alternative was recommended for further study for consideration as an LRT alternative. Ridership, mobility, and

connectivity would improve in the east San Fernando Valley with a median-running LRT alternative. This alternative would

serve both the Van Nuys Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard corridors. The LRT alternative also garnered strong public

support.



Page 106

Similar to Stage I, the community input and financial capability evaluation criteria were analyzed for the 15 alternatives as part of the Stage II, Tier I screening of alternatives. In general, these followed the same determinations as Stage I that are discussed in Section 4.5.1. More specifically, as part of Stage II, the information pertaining to community input and financial capability were evaluated based on the totality of the alternative, which consists of the mode, configuration, and alignment option.

4.5.4. 4.5.4. 4.5.4. 4.5.4. Stage II Screening ResultsStage II Screening ResultsStage II Screening ResultsStage II Screening Results

Based on the Tier I screening process, six build alternatives with the highest rankings (four BRT and two LRT) were recommended for further analysis as part of the Tier II screening analysis.

4.64.64.64.6 TTTTIER IER IER IER IIIIIIII EEEEVALUATION VALUATION VALUATION VALUATION

How was the Tier II screening of alternatives evaluated?How was the Tier II screening of alternatives evaluated?How was the Tier II screening of alternatives evaluated?How was the Tier II screening of alternatives evaluated? The Tier II screening included an evaluation of the build alternatives relative to the evaluation criteria and their corresponding performance measures. This consisted of a primarily quantitative analysis that evaluated each performance measure in relation to the alternatives. The scores were based on a scale from one, representing the most potential impact/least beneficial, to five, representing the least potential impacts/most beneficial. Similar to the Tier I screening, the alternative scores were equally weighted. 4.4.4.4.6666.1..1..1..1. Alternatives Being EvaluatedAlternatives Being EvaluatedAlternatives Being EvaluatedAlternatives Being Evaluated

The six build alternatives that were recommended for further analysis in the Tier II screening process are summarized in Table 4-6.


Page 107

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----6 6 6 6 –––– Recommended AlternativesRecommended AlternativesRecommended AlternativesRecommended Alternatives

ALTERNATIVEALTERNATIVEALTERNATIVEALTERNATIVE 2B2B2B2B 2L2L2L2L 4B4B4B4B 6B6B6B6B 7B7B7B7B 7L7L7L7L

RouteRouteRouteRoute 4444 6666ModeModeModeMode

ConfigurationConfigurationConfigurationConfigurationBRTBRTBRTBRTM7M7M7M7

LRTLRTLRTLRTM4M4M4M4

BRTBRTBRTBRTM7M7M7M7



LRTLRTLRTLRTM4M4M4M4

AlignmentSepulveda/Ventura - Van Nuys/Ventura – Van Nuys Blvd. – San

Fernando Rd. – Truman St. -


Van Nuys/Ventura – Van Nuys Blvd. – San

Fernando Rd. – Truman St. -


Sepulveda/Ventura – Sepulveda – Metro Orange Line – Van Nuys Blvd. – Van

Nuys/Foothill

Sepulveda/Ventura – Sepulveda – Metro Orange Line – Van Nuys Blvd. – San Fernando Rd. - Truman St. –


12.2 11.2 11.0 12.0 12.9 12.9

Dedicated: 6.5 miles



Mixed-flow:5.7 miles

Mixed-flow: 2.6 miles

Mixed-flow: 1 mile

Lanes/Direction 2/3 2 2 2 2 2

Number of Dedicated Transit Lanes

2 2 2 2 2 2

Guideway LocationMedian

RunningMedian

RunningMedian

RunningMedian

RunningMedian

RunningMedian

Running

Station LocationSide

PlatformCenter Platform

Side Platform

Side Platform

Side Platform

Center Platform

Estimated Number of Stations

14 13 14 14 13 13

Peak/Off-Peak Headway (minutes)

6/12 6/12 6/12 6/12 6/12 6/12

Sepulveda/Ventura – Sepulveda Blvd. – Metro Orange Line – Van Nuys Blvd. – Parthenia St. – Sepulveda Blvd. – Brand

Blvd. – Truman St. – Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station

77772222

Dedicated GuidewayDedicated GuidewayDedicated Guideway

Route Length (miles)

East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Screening of Alternatives Alternatives Analysis Report FINAl

Page 108

• Alternative 2BAlternative 2BAlternative 2BAlternative 2B –––– This generally median-running BRT would operate from the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station in the north to Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard in the south serving the City of San Fernando and Los Angeles communities of Pacoima, Arleta, Panorama City, Van Nuys, and Sherman Oaks with approximately 14 stations. Approximately 6.5 miles of the route would operate in a median-running configuration. The remaining 5.7 miles would operate in mixed-flow traffic between the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station and San Fernando Road/Van Nuys Boulevard, and south of the Metro Orange Line (MOL). The buses would continue south to serve Westwood.

• Alternative 2LAlternative 2LAlternative 2LAlternative 2L –––– This median-running LRT alternative serves the same communities as Alternative 2B with approximately 13 stations; however, service terminates at Van Nuys Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard. The entire 11.2 mile route would operate in a dedicated guideway. A transfer would be required onto Rapid Line 761 to continue to Westwood. Right-of-way acquisition will be required along several segments.

• Alternative 4BAlternative 4BAlternative 4BAlternative 4B –––– This median-running BRT would operate from Foothill Boulevard/Van Nuys Boulevard in the north to Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard in the south with a connection via the MOL. This route serves the Los Angeles communities of Pacoima, Lakeview Terrace, Arleta, Panorama City, Van Nuys, and Sherman Oaks with approximately 14 stations. The entire 11 mile route would operate in a dedicated guideway. The buses would continue south to serve Westwood. For access to the commercial corridor on Ventura Boulevard, between Sepulveda Boulevard and Van Nuys Boulevard, a transfer would be required.

• Alternative 6BAlternative 6BAlternative 6BAlternative 6B –––– This generally median-running BRT would operate from the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station in the north to Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard in the south via the MOL. It would serve the City of San Fernando and Los Angeles communities of Pacoima, Arleta, Panorama City, Van Nuys, and Sherman Oaks with approximately 14 stations. Approximately 9.4 miles of the route operates in a median-running configuration. The remaining 2.6 miles would operate in mixed-flow traffic between the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station and San Fernando Road/Van Nuys Boulevard. The buses would continue south to serve Westwood. Access to the commercial corridor on Ventura Boulevard would require a transfer.

• Alternative 7BAlternative 7BAlternative 7BAlternative 7B –––– This alternative is mainly a median-running BRT that would operate from the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station in the north to Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard in the south transitioning via Parthenia Street and the MOL. It would serve the City of San Fernando and Los Angeles communities of Mission Hills, Panorama City, Van Nuys, and Sherman Oaks with approximately 13 stations. Approximately 11.9 miles of the route operates in a median-running configuration. The remaining one mile would operate in mixed-flow traffic between the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station and San Fernando Road/Brand Boulevard. The buses would continue south to serve Westwood. Access to the commercial corridor on Ventura Boulevard would require a transfer.

• Alternative 7L Alternative 7L Alternative 7L Alternative 7L –––– This median-running LRT alternative provides service to the same communities as Alternative 7B via approximately 13 stations. The entire 12.9 mile route would operate in a dedicated guideway. Unlike Alternative 7B, a transfer would be required onto Rapid Line 761, to continue to Westwood. Access to the commercial

East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Screening of Alternatives Alternatives Analysis Report FINAl

Page 109

corridor on Ventura Boulevard would require a transfer. Right-of-way acquisition will be required along several segments of this alternative.

4.6.24.6.24.6.24.6.2 Comparative Analysis of AlternativesComparative Analysis of AlternativesComparative Analysis of AlternativesComparative Analysis of Alternatives

Evaluation criteria and the corresponding performance measures were developed as part of the screening process to determine which alternatives should be carried into the DEIS/DEIR. This section summarizes the analysis of the six build alternatives in relation to the criteria and incorporates public input from community meetings held in October 2011 and April/May/October 2012. 4.4.4.4.6666.2.1. Travel and Mobility Benefits and Impacts.2.1. Travel and Mobility Benefits and Impacts.2.1. Travel and Mobility Benefits and Impacts.2.1. Travel and Mobility Benefits and Impacts The travel and mobility benefits and impacts for the alternatives are compared in Table 4-7. The considerations include factors related to transit ridership, user benefits, new riders, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction, journey times, and vehicular travel time impacts. The detailed description of how these measures are calculated are described in Section 4.4 Ridership Modeling, this section describes the results and the underpinnings. Based on the comparison of alternatives, the primary findings of the analysis are as follows:

• Alternative 7B would have the highest ridership for the BRT alternatives, with a total of 34,695 daily/10,998,315 annual boardings by 2035.

• Of the LRT alternatives, Alternative 7L would have the highest ridership by 2035 with a total of 39,800 daily/12,616,600 annual boardings as it is projected to operate at a higher average speed than Alternative 2L since it would be traveling along less congested roadway segments.

• Although the LRT alternatives are projected to have the highest ridership totals, they would potentially have fewer user benefits and new riders than the BRT alternatives. This is a direct result of the transit markets the LRT alternatives are serving. For this project there are two main transit markets, one is for trips that begin and end in the corridor, and the other are those that only have one end in the corridor or travel through the corridor. Since the LRT alternatives only travel within the corridor, they only capture the benefits for one market. For example, for Alternative 7L, when only considering the user benefits within the study area, it creates about 3,500 hours of positive user benefits against the baseline. However, since the operating plan for Alternative 7L stops at Ventura Boulevard/Sepulveda Boulevard this creates disbenefits (negative user benefits) for existing and new riders when compared to the baseline alternative. There are two operating issues that contribute to the disbenefits: 1) for riders traveling through the study area to Westwood, the transfer required at Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard to Metro Rapid Line 761 makes the trip more onerous than in the baseline therefore creates negative user benefits; 2) Rapid Line 761 runs at six to 10 minute peak/off-peak headways in the baseline and 10/17.5 minute headways in the alternative. This means for travel outside of the corridor, from Ventura Boulevard to Westwood, there would be less frequent transit service for the customer than in the baseline. This would cause negative user benefits as well.


Page 110

Table Table Table Table 4444----7777 –––– Travel and Mobility Benefits and Impacts ComparisonTravel and Mobility Benefits and Impacts ComparisonTravel and Mobility Benefits and Impacts ComparisonTravel and Mobility Benefits and Impacts Comparison

Alternative 2BAlternative 2BAlternative 2BAlternative 2B

Alternative 2LAlternative 2LAlternative 2LAlternative 2L





Travel and Travel and Travel and Travel and MobilityMobilityMobilityMobility

Benefits and Benefits and Benefits and Benefits and ImpactsImpactsImpactsImpacts Annual Study AreaAnnual Study AreaAnnual Study AreaAnnual Study Area

Transit Ridership Transit Ridership Transit Ridership Transit Ridership(Daily/Annual)(Daily/Annual)(Daily/Annual)(Daily/Annual)

* – These measures are compared to the baseline alternative. The LRT Alternatives on a system-wide basis have negative user benefits (for the reasons described above), which means if there are no benefits over the baseline the alternative does not attract new riders.

Annual Hours of System-wideAnnual Hours of System-wideAnnual Hours of System-wideAnnual Hours of System-wideTransit Users BenefitTransit Users BenefitTransit Users BenefitTransit Users Benefit

(Daily/Annual) *(Daily/Annual) *(Daily/Annual) *(Daily/Annual) *

Annual Sytem-wideAnnual Sytem-wideAnnual Sytem-wideAnnual Sytem-wideNew RidersNew RidersNew RidersNew Riders

(Daily/Annual) *(Daily/Annual) *(Daily/Annual) *(Daily/Annual) *

12,616,60012,616,60012,616,60012,616,600

11,885,59811,885,59811,885,59811,885,598

10,645,49410,645,49410,645,49410,645,494

9,042,1089,042,1089,042,1089,042,108

10,195,35410,195,35410,195,35410,195,35432,16232,16232,16232,162

37,49437,49437,49437,494

28,54228,54228,54228,542

33,58233,58233,58233,582

10,998,31510,998,31510,998,31510,998,31534,69534,69534,69534,695

39,80039,80039,80039,800

1,918,2001,918,2001,918,2001,918,200

1,764,6001,764,6001,764,6001,764,600

1,292,3001,292,3001,292,3001,292,300

-1,281,400-1,281,400-1,281,400-1,281,400

-1,179,900-1,179,900-1,179,900-1,179,900

899,000899,000899,000899,0002,8002,8002,8002,800

-3,700-3,700-3,700-3,700

5,6005,6005,6005,600

6,1006,1006,1006,100

4,1004,1004,1004,100

-4,000-4,000-4,000-4,000

1,664,9001,664,9001,664,9001,664,900

1,551,1001,551,1001,551,1001,551,100

1,172,0001,172,0001,172,0001,172,000

763,700763,700763,700763,7002,4002,4002,4002,400

4,9004,9004,9004,900

5,3005,3005,3005,300

3,7003,7003,7003,700

-1,158,000-1,158,000-1,158,000-1,158,000

-1,141,200-1,141,200-1,141,200-1,141,200-3,600-3,600-3,600-3,600

-3,700-3,700-3,700-3,700


Page 111

Table Table Table Table 4444----7777 –––– Travel and Mobility Benefits and Impacts Comparison (continued)Travel and Mobility Benefits and Impacts Comparison (continued)Travel and Mobility Benefits and Impacts Comparison (continued)Travel and Mobility Benefits and Impacts Comparison (continued)

San Fernando to San Fernando to San Fernando to San Fernando to Sherman OaksSherman OaksSherman OaksSherman Oaks

Panorama City to Panorama City to Panorama City to Panorama City to WestwoodWestwoodWestwoodWestwood

Sylmar/San Sylmar/San Sylmar/San Sylmar/San Fernando Fernando Fernando Fernando

Metrolink to North Metrolink to North Metrolink to North Metrolink to North HollywoodHollywoodHollywoodHollywood

Pacoima to Van Pacoima to Van Pacoima to Van Pacoima to Van Nuys Civic CenterNuys Civic CenterNuys Civic CenterNuys Civic Center







* – Alternative 4B does not provide a BRT connection between San Fernando and Sherman Oaks, as its northern terminus is Foothill Blvd./Van Nuys Blvd.

* *– Alternatives 7B and 7L do not directly serve San Fernando Rd./Van Nuys Blvd.

Vehicular Traffic Vehicular Traffic Vehicular Traffic Vehicular Traffic Travel Time ImpactTravel Time ImpactTravel Time ImpactTravel Time Impact

(Daily/Annual)(Daily/Annual)(Daily/Annual)(Daily/Annual)

Point to Point Travel Point to Point Travel Point to Point Travel Point to Point Travel Times (Journey Time in Minutes)Times (Journey Time in Minutes)Times (Journey Time in Minutes)Times (Journey Time in Minutes)Annual Study Area Vehicle Annual Study Area Vehicle Annual Study Area Vehicle Annual Study Area Vehicle

Miles Miles Miles Miles Traveled (VMT) ReductionTraveled (VMT) ReductionTraveled (VMT) ReductionTraveled (VMT) Reduction

(Daily/Annual)(Daily/Annual)(Daily/Annual)(Daily/Annual)

Travel and Travel and Travel and Travel and MobilityMobilityMobilityMobility

Benefits and Benefits and Benefits and Benefits and ImpactsImpactsImpactsImpacts

31,70031,70031,70031,700

40.440.440.440.4

40.840.840.840.8

35.535.535.535.5

41.341.341.341.3

46.8 *46.8 *46.8 *46.8 *

38.838.838.838.8

85.185.185.185.1

68.868.868.868.8

74.974.974.974.9

74.974.974.974.9

74.974.974.974.9

72.372.372.372.3

68.2 *68.2 *68.2 *68.2 *

48.648.648.648.6

48.948.948.948.9

51.051.051.051.0

51.051.051.051.0

50.550.550.550.5

32.3 **32.3 **32.3 **32.3 **

23.623.623.623.6

22.622.622.622.6

23.623.623.623.6

23.623.623.623.6

27.4 **27.4 **27.4 **27.4 **

1,826,8001,826,8001,826,8001,826,800

1,826,4801,826,4801,826,4801,826,480

1,825,2001,825,2001,825,2001,825,200

1,825,4001,825,4001,825,4001,825,400

1,826,5001,826,5001,826,5001,826,500

1,829,7001,829,7001,829,7001,829,700

5,7635,7635,7635,763

5,7805,7805,7805,780

5,7585,7585,7585,758

5,7585,7585,7585,758

5,7625,7625,7625,762

5,7725,7725,7725,772

31,50031,50031,50031,500

31,40031,40031,40031,400

31,40031,40031,40031,400

31,40031,40031,40031,400

31,70031,70031,70031,700

99.399.399.399.3

101.1101.1101.1101.1

92.292.292.292.2

99.099.099.099.0

98.998.998.998.9

101.1101.1101.1101.1


Page 112

• Alternative 7B would have the highest ridership for a total of 34,695 daily and 10,998,315 annual boardings. This is attributed to the reduced roadway congestion compared to the BRT alternatives. Additionally, of the alternatives that would have portions of the alignment operating in mixed-flow traffic (Alternative 2B and 6B), this alternative would operate for a shorter distance in mixed-flow traffic lanes.

• In general, the constraints associated with LRT alternatives would have the greatest impact to vehicular travel times. However, Alternative 7L would also reduce the study area VMT.

4.4.4.4.6666.2.2. .2.2. .2.2. .2.2. RegionalRegionalRegionalRegional ConnectivityConnectivityConnectivityConnectivity Considerations of regional connectivity in relationship to the alternatives are compared in Table 4-8. The performance measures that were evaluated include intermodal system connectivity, system compatibility within the region, and compliance with the Long Range Regional Mobility Goal as outlined in the regional land use plans.

Table Table Table Table 4444----8888 –––– Regional Connectivity ComparisonRegional Connectivity ComparisonRegional Connectivity ComparisonRegional Connectivity Comparison

Intermodal System Intermodal System Intermodal System Intermodal System ConnectivityConnectivityConnectivityConnectivity

(# of Connections)(# of Connections)(# of Connections)(# of Connections)

System Compatibility System Compatibility System Compatibility System Compatibility within the Regionwithin the Regionwithin the Regionwithin the Region

Comply with Long Range Comply with Long Range Comply with Long Range Comply with Long Range Regional Mobility GoalRegional Mobility GoalRegional Mobility GoalRegional Mobility Goal







Regional ConnectivityRegional ConnectivityRegional ConnectivityRegional Connectivity

35353535

31313131

34343434

28282828

34343434

32323232

Based on the comparison of alternatives, the primary findings of the analysis are as follows:

• Alternative 2B would provide the most intermodal connectivity to Metrolink, Amtrak, the MOL, and Metro Rapid and local bus lines. There is also potential future connections with the California High Speed Rail and the Sepulveda Pass Corridor projects. This route has the possibility of connecting to approximately 35 other transit systems in the study area when possible future connections are considered.


Page 113

• All new LRT infrastructure would be necessary and it would not link to other LRT lines.

• Within the east San Fernando Valley, BRT would be compatible with existing service and the MOL.

• All of the alternatives would comply with the Metro LRTP by improving mobility in the region.

4.4.4.4.6666.2.3. .2.3. .2.3. .2.3. Cost Cost Cost Cost EffectivenessEffectivenessEffectivenessEffectiveness A comparison of the cost effectiveness for the alternatives is summarized in Table 4-9. The evaluation of this criteria considered factors associated with the capital costs, incremental annual operations and maintenance costs, and the incremental cost for each new rider.

Table Table Table Table 4444----9999 –––– Cost Effectiveness ComparisonCost Effectiveness ComparisonCost Effectiveness ComparisonCost Effectiveness Comparison

Capital CostsCapital CostsCapital CostsCapital Costs

($ million, 2018)($ million, 2018)($ million, 2018)($ million, 2018)

Incremental Annual Incremental Annual Incremental Annual Incremental Annual

Operations and Operations and Operations and Operations and

Maintenance (O&M) Maintenance (O&M) Maintenance (O&M) Maintenance (O&M)

CostsCostsCostsCosts

($ million, 2012)($ million, 2012)($ million, 2012)($ million, 2012)

Incremental Cost Incremental Cost Incremental Cost Incremental Cost

Per Per Per Per

New Transit TripNew Transit TripNew Transit TripNew Transit Trip


Alternative 2LAlternative 2LAlternative 2LAlternative 2L ****




Alternative 7LAlternative 7LAlternative 7LAlternative 7L ****

Cost Cost Cost Cost


* Alternatives 2L and 7L do not generate a net increase in system wide transit trips over the Baseline. As described in section

4.5.2.1, as an example, Alternative 7L, when only considering the user benefits within the study area creates about 3,500 hours of

positive user benefits against the baseline. However, since the operating plan for Alternative 7L stops at Ventura

Boulevard/Sepulveda Boulevard this creates disbenefits associated with a transfer for passengers traveling to/from the corridor

which is not the case in the BRT Alternatives (or Baseline), and the inconsistency in the frequency of service outside of the corridor.

$1,700$1,700$1,700$1,700----2,3002,3002,3002,300

$1,800$1,800$1,800$1,800----2,3002,3002,3002,300

$296$296$296$296----558558558558

$283$283$283$283----520520520520

$340$340$340$340----619619619619

$252$252$252$252----440 440 440 440

$38.4$38.4$38.4$38.4

$35.6$35.6$35.6$35.6

$8.8$8.8$8.8$8.8

$8.0$8.0$8.0$8.0

$7.3$7.3$7.3$7.3

$8.0$8.0$8.0$8.0

$330$330$330$330----576576576576

$290$290$290$290----528528528528

$191$191$191$191----360360360360

$170$170$170$170----312312312312


• The incremental annual O&M costs are compared to the No Build Alternative and include the costs of additional vehicles, station, and guideway maintenance for the BRT alternatives.


Page 114

• The incremental annual O&M costs for the LRT alternatives include power and maintenance of vehicles and guideway maintenance.

• The lowest capital cost is Alternative 2B with a cost ranging from $252 to $440 million (2018 $), while Alternative 4B would have the lowest operations and maintenance cost at approximately $26.3 million.

• Alternative 6B would provide the most cost effectiveness when considering the incremental cost of each new transit trip at $360.

• The LRT alternatives incremental cost per new transit trip are not fully analyzed since these alternatives are projected to have net negative ridership due to additional transfers created, lower frequency of connecting transit service, and affects from various markets being served. This concept is discussed in further detail in Section 4.6.2.1 Travel and Mobility Benefits and Impacts.

4.4.4.4.6666.2.4. .2.4. .2.4. .2.4. EnvironmentalEnvironmentalEnvironmentalEnvironmental Benefits and ImpactsBenefits and ImpactsBenefits and ImpactsBenefits and Impacts Numerous environmental measures which include air quality, noise and vibration, geotechnical, visual and aesthetic, historic and cultural resources, greenhouse gases, parklands, traffic, pedestrian, and bicycles, community disruption and displacement, hazardous materials, biological resources, and construction were evaluated in relation to each project alternative. The comparative evaluation is summarized in Table 4-10. Based on the comparison of alternatives, the primary findings of the analysis are as follows:

• From an overall environmental perspective, Alternative 4B would have the least amount of potential impacts.

• Air quality impacts considered short- and mid-term emissions since long-term emissions are anticipated to achieve considerable reductions due to improved fuel economy, emissions control technologies, migration to alternative fuels, and retirement of older vehicles. As a result, BRT alternatives would have less potential impacts as they would reduce more VMT and have less vehicle delay.

• LRT alternatives would produce high potential noise and vibration impacts along the proposed routes.

• Potential geotechnical impacts would occur with the LRT alternatives as they are more likely to impact the pavement.

• All the alternatives have the potential to create visual and aesthetic impacts due to the effects of median-running guideways. However, the LRT alternatives would create the most impacts due to their overhead catenary system which supplies electricity through overhead wires. Additionally, alternatives that operate along Brand Boulevard would have a higher visual and aesthetic impacts as this segment is highly residential.

• Historic and cultural resources are located in the vicinity of several of the alternatives. The LRT alternatives have a higher potential for impacting these resources due to their greater presence.

• Alternatives that would operate in dedicated guideways are likely to have fewer impacts to greenhouse gases in the study area.


Page 115

Table Table Table Table 4444----10101010 –––– Environmental Benefits and Impacts ComparisonEnvironmental Benefits and Impacts ComparisonEnvironmental Benefits and Impacts ComparisonEnvironmental Benefits and Impacts Comparison

Air Quality Air Quality Air Quality Air Quality Noise and Noise and Noise and Noise and VibrationVibrationVibrationVibration

GeotechnicalGeotechnicalGeotechnicalGeotechnicalVisual and Visual and Visual and Visual and AestheticAestheticAestheticAesthetic

Historic and Historic and Historic and Historic and Cultural Cultural Cultural Cultural

ResourcesResourcesResourcesResources

Greenhouse Greenhouse Greenhouse Greenhouse GasesGasesGasesGases

ParklandsParklandsParklandsParklandsTraffic, Traffic, Traffic, Traffic,

Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian and Bicycleand Bicycleand Bicycleand Bicycle

Community Community Community Community Disruption Disruption Disruption Disruption

and and and and DisplacementDisplacementDisplacementDisplacement

Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous MaterialsMaterialsMaterialsMaterials

Biological Biological Biological Biological ResourcesResourcesResourcesResources

ConstructionConstructionConstructionConstruction







Least Potential Impacts

Fewer Potential Impacts

Moderate Potential Impacts

More Potential Impacts

Greatest Potential Impacts

Environmental Environmental Environmental Environmental Benefits and Benefits and Benefits and Benefits and



Page 116

• The alternatives were evaluated based on the number of parklands adjacent to the alignments and the potential impacts. Based on this evaluation, in general, the LRT alternatives would have a greater potential impact to parklands.

• Based on potential impacts to traffic, pedestrian, and bicycles, Alternatives 2B and 4B would cause slightly less impacts as compared to similar alternatives.

• Alternative 7L would not generate as many impacts to planned bicycle facilities compared to the other alternatives.

• Community disruption and displacement would be significant for the LRT alternatives, more so for Alternative 2L due to potential ROW acquisition along a portion of the northern alignment.

• Potential impacts to hazardous materials in the ROW are higher for LRT alternatives due to potential issues related to arsenic, lead, herbicides, and pesticides.

• All of the alternatives would have slight differences with respect to biological resources; however, Alternative 4B would have slightly less potential to affect special-status plants and bat species.

• Construction associated with the building of an LRT alternative would cause the greatest potential impacts during the construction period.

4.4.4.4.6666.2.5. .2.5. .2.5. .2.5. Economic and Land Use ConsiderationsEconomic and Land Use ConsiderationsEconomic and Land Use ConsiderationsEconomic and Land Use Considerations Economic and land use considerations were evaluated for the alternatives to compare performances measures that include transit dependence, construction employment generation, construction-related takes (i.e. ROW acquisition), economic development, and transit supportive land use. Table 4-11 summarizes the alternatives comparison.

Table Table Table Table 4444----11111111 –––– Economic and Land Use Considerations ComparisonEconomic and Land Use Considerations ComparisonEconomic and Land Use Considerations ComparisonEconomic and Land Use Considerations Comparison

Accessibility - Accessibility - Accessibility - Accessibility - Transit Dependent Transit Dependent Transit Dependent Transit Dependent

PopulationPopulationPopulationPopulation

Construction Construction Construction Construction Employment Employment Employment Employment GenerationGenerationGenerationGeneration

Construction-Construction-Construction-Construction-relatedrelatedrelatedrelatedTakesTakesTakesTakes

Economic Economic Economic Economic DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment

Transit Transit Transit Transit Supportive Land Supportive Land Supportive Land Supportive Land

UseUseUseUse







Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

Economic and Economic and Economic and Economic and Land Use Land Use Land Use Land Use



Page 117


• All of the project alternatives would serve transit dependent populations in the project study area. Alternatives that serve the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station and operate to Van Nuys Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard would serve a greater number of transit dependent populations along Van Nuys Boulevard in comparison to alignments that traverse Sepulveda Boulevard, between the MOL and Ventura Boulevard.

• Construction employment generation would be highest under the LRT alternatives as this mode would have a higher intensity of infrastructure construction.

• Similar to the employment generation, because of the higher infrastructure needs under the LRT alternatives, these would create the most impacts compared to BRT.

• Of the BRT alternatives, Alternatives 6B and 7B would likely spur more economic development due to the community and land uses these alignments would serve.

• Of the LRT alternatives, Alternative 7L would potentially create more economic development.

• The land uses within the study area would be supportive of any of the transit alternatives under consideration.

4.4.4.4.6666.2.6. .2.6. .2.6. .2.6. Community InputCommunity InputCommunity InputCommunity Input The community input evaluates the alternatives based on public, organization, and agency input as related to local and regional plan consistency, community integration and support, integration into the Backbone Bike Network and pedestrian linkages, impacts to on-street parking, safety and security, and the physical environment. The comparison of alternatives for community input is summarized in Table 4-12. Based on the comparison of alternatives, the primary findings of the analysis are as follows:

• Performance measures related to local and regional plan consistency, impacts to on-street parking, and safety and security received very few or no community comments during the most recent round of community meetings.

• Determination for the community integration and support measure was based on the community survey that was distributed during the meetings. The overall sentiment was in support of the LRT mode, with Alternative 2L being favored over Alternative 7L. Of the four BRT alternatives surveyed, all four were received similar support. Alternatives 6B and 7B were tied, followed by Alternative 2B, and 4B.

• Public comments demonstrated interest in bike lanes, especially the potential to integrate a bicycle network with the LRT alternatives since LRT has a greater capacity for transporting bikes.

• The public noted concern for Alternative 7B and 7L due to the segment that would operate along Brand Boulevard and the potential impacts to the physical environment.


Page 118

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----12 12 12 12 –––– Community Input ComparisonCommunity Input ComparisonCommunity Input ComparisonCommunity Input Comparison

Local and Regional Local and Regional Local and Regional Local and Regional Plan ConsistencyPlan ConsistencyPlan ConsistencyPlan Consistency

Community Community Community Community Integration and Integration and Integration and Integration and

SupportSupportSupportSupport

Integrate Backbone Integrate Backbone Integrate Backbone Integrate Backbone Bike Network and Bike Network and Bike Network and Bike Network and

Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian LinkagesLinkagesLinkagesLinkages

Impact to On-Impact to On-Impact to On-Impact to On-Street ParkingStreet ParkingStreet ParkingStreet Parking

Safety and Safety and Safety and Safety and SecuritySecuritySecuritySecurity

Physical Physical Physical Physical EnvironmentEnvironmentEnvironmentEnvironment

Alternative 2BAlternative 2BAlternative 2BAlternative 2B **** **** ****

Alternative 2LAlternative 2LAlternative 2LAlternative 2L **** **** ****




Alternative 7LAlternative 7LAlternative 7LAlternative 7L **** **** ****

Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High


* Very few or no public comments were received

4.4.4.4.6666.2.7. .2.7. .2.7. .2.7. Financial CapabilityFinancial CapabilityFinancial CapabilityFinancial Capability The East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor project only has $170.1 million allocated as part of the LRTP; any costs in excess of this amount will need to be funded by other sources. Capital construction costs for each alternative, which may include the construction of a guideway, stations, vehicles, and supporting facilities, were evaluated to determine the potential fiscal impacts and cost effectiveness of each alternative. These alternatives have been evaluated on a general level (five-percent engineered), and as the project moves forward, future phases of work, design and costs will be refined. The comparison of alternatives includes an evaluation of the funding shortfall for each alternative as summarized in Table 4-13. Based on the comparison of alternatives, the primary findings of the analysis are as follows:

• All six build alternatives would encounter construction funding shortfalls based on the LRTP identified funds of $170.1 million.

• The funding shortfalls for the BRT alternatives range from $82 million to $449 million (2018 $).

• The LRT alternative funding shortfalls are more or less equal at $1.6 billion to $2.1 billion (2018 $).

• Alternative 2B would be the closest to the currently allocated LRTP identified funds, followed by Alternative 6B and 4B.


Page 119

• The LRT alternatives cost approximately nine to 13 times more than the allocated LRTP identified funds, thereby far exceeding the funding that is currently available for this project.

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4----13 13 13 13 –––– Financial Capability ComparisonFinancial Capability ComparisonFinancial Capability ComparisonFinancial Capability Comparison

LRTP LRTP LRTP LRTP

AllocationAllocationAllocationAllocationShortfallShortfallShortfallShortfall Total CostTotal CostTotal CostTotal Cost

Alternative 2BAlternative 2BAlternative 2BAlternative 2B $250-440

Alternative 2LAlternative 2LAlternative 2LAlternative 2L $1,800-2,300




Alternative 7LAlternative 7LAlternative 7LAlternative 7L $1,700-2,300

Financial Financial Financial Financial

FeasibilityFeasibilityFeasibilityFeasibility

Estimated Project Cost ($ million, 2018)Estimated Project Cost ($ million, 2018)Estimated Project Cost ($ million, 2018)Estimated Project Cost ($ million, 2018)

($1,600($1,600($1,600($1,600----2,100)2,100)2,100)2,100)

($1,600($1,600($1,600($1,600----2,100)2,100)2,100)2,100)

($82($82($82($82----270)270)270)270)

($126($126($126($126----388)388)388)388)

($113($113($113($113----350)350)350)350)

($170($170($170($170----449)449)449)449)

($170)($170)($170)($170)

($170)($170)($170)($170)

($170)($170)($170)($170)

($170)($170)($170)($170)

($170)($170)($170)($170)

($170)($170)($170)($170)

Documents

4.044..004.0 Screening of AlternativesScreening of ...media.metro.net/projects_studies/east_sfv/images/esfv_Screening_of...4.044..004.0 Screening of AlternativesScreening of AlternativesScreening